Energy!

One of the six things that the Trump administration has chosen to highlight on whitehouse.gov is their energy policy. Which is, essentially, to rip up all the parts of the country containing natural gas and oil and put all of our efforts into those ventures.

I am not, to be honest, much of an environmentalist. I'm sure there are environmental impacts to all this drilling that aren't great, and I know conservatives in particular couldn't possibly care less about it when there's money to be made.

I think there are two big things that confuse me about this course of action:

1) We use so much oil that our current consumption rate makes energy independence completely impossible. Sure, maybe we can become slightly less dependent on foreign oil, but do a little bit of research and you'll find out very quickly that total energy independence is impossible. I think a lot of conservatives believe that we could achieve independence if we just allow ourselves to drill into these sources of oil and natural gas in our country, but that's not even close to true, and I don't think most conservatives know that. And they could learn this really quickly with some easy research....

2) Much more importantly, nobody in the Republican party wants to talk about the fact that oil and natural gas are FINITE resources that we will run out of in 100-150 years. And what do you think is going to happen when there's no more oil? If we don't have an alternative form of energy integrated into society by then, society will collapse. That's not being overly dramatic; that's the TRUTH. Now, the typical conservative response to this is always "oh I'm sure the smart technologists and engineers of the world will have invented something for us by then." Which is some extremely entitled and selfish thinking, the thought that someone else will be cleaning up for your laziness and ignorance while you continue reaping the short-term benefits of something that causes long-term damage. 100 years of time is meaningless if no financial or political support is given towards inventing these technologies and integrating them into society. Any amount of time is meaningless if no support for the cause is given during that time. Do you think engineers are just going to develop the form of energy that saves us all out of the goodness of their hearts? In today's world, engineers are trying desperately to get jobs to work on these technologies, and they can't get them because they just don't exist (trust me, I know, because I am one of those people!!!). It's pretty clear that as long as Republican administrations are in power and continue to push us down a path of digging up soon-to-be-depleted resources instead of financing and supporting the technologies that will actually allow society to continue existing, then we will be totally screwed. They can't be bothered to take a short term economic hit, even though the economic hit caused by the total depletion of fossil fuels will completely destroy modern society if nobody gets the balls to do something about it.

 

Thank you! You have echoed the same sort of things I've been trying to drive home for some time, and you have a background related to it all for your credentials.

To add to your comments, U.S. oil companies have many many leases they aren't drilling. They are saving them. If the price of oil goes up, they will begin drilling some of them but they have more than they can handle right now anyway. And they want more. And trump wants to make sure they get more. But that isn't going to make us energy-independent. The reason oil companies want more leases is that every lease translates into a boost to their stock prices. They are considered assets on their balance sheets and increasing assets drives stock prices up. And rising stock prices are very lucrative for CEOs who are holding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock options.

Let that sink in.

Stock transactions don't put the proceeds from purchase into the company's hands because the money comes from and goes to investors. They are investor-investor transactions. So a CEO is given options that are back-dated to a time when the stock price was low (something not available to the public), giving them automatic and instant value. But the options are just written up by a broker or other agent at no cost to the oil company except for payment for services. -No cost to the company! But they have instant value for the holder. And the holder either sells the call option to the public through a broker, or the CEO exercises the call option for cash, but the money comes from other investors. So this scheme funnels money from the public into the hands of the CEO at no cost to the oil company.

Who is left holding the bag in a Ponzi scheme? And the right thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme! "They ain't seen nuttin yet!" CEO stock option plans are the tops in Ponzi schemes.

And an accumulation of oil leases makes it all lucrative even without oil business growing or increasing profits.

We don't actually need any more oil leases at the moment. But trump will grant them.

 

Completely wrong in every last detail. Peak oil is and always has been a fiction. We are already furnishing something like 60% of our own oil. Converting about thrity percent of our auto fleet to CNG wouls keep us going for another couple of hundred years maybe long at the rate we're finding new deposits.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why do you think oil companies are now producing shale oil and tar sands oil? -The easy-to-get sweet crude is no longer so easy to find. Sweet crude peaked in 2006. Some say even earlier.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/101109-peak-oil-iea-world-energy-outlook/

 

That's funny you pick one sector and while that is the best oil it is not the only oil. By the way we just recently opened a major new oilfield near Midland, Texas. We are constantly finding New sources of oil and natural gas. In fact as of this we now have more proven oil reserves than we did 5 years ago and the amount increases almost yearly.

 

peak oil is a myth, and shale oil is a viable alternative to buying oil from countries that we don't really like all that much.

Plus, the petro dollar can be maintained internally, rather than relying on saudis who I for one find completely immoral people.

 

Welcome to the forum.

I've had this discussion many times with conservatives, and it is absolutely pointless. As you can see already from the first posts is an absolute denial that oil is a non-renewable resources. Next comes the assertion that oil will last for another 500 years - because the oil companies said so. Then, there will be the accusation that you are a socialist who just wants to destroy everyone's lifestyle. Oh, and don't get me started on the abiotic oil hypothesis.

And, when all other arguments fail, the free market and human ingenuity will fix it all.

And with that kind of mindset we have a president who will set back the transition away from oil for decades. Our children and grandchildren will suffer for it, but what do they care.

 

Since you did say "every last detail", that also includes the fact that we will someday run out of oil. If what you said is correct, then it is false for me to have said "we will run out of oil". Right?

 

What part of the fact that there are more proven oil reserves now than there were at any time in our history did you miss?

 

I'm not arguing that oil isn't a finite resource, but it's telling that we've been told we only have a 50 year supply of oil since the 1950's.

If you want off oil, you just need a cheaper and just as effective substitute. At our current level of technology, oil is hard to beat for it's versatility. The longer it lasts, the more time we have to come up with an effective substitute. Good luck in your research!

 

We've also been told the last 8 years that the US is going to collapse any minute due to the Obama debt. Has it happened? No! So my conclusion is that it will never happen and federal debt is nothing to worry about. See how that kind of thinking works?

Instead of just hoping that oil will last another 50 years, I rather go with data:



This graph clearly shows that the low hanging fruit have been picked and future oil will be harder and harder to get -- the clear hallmark of a resource that is running out. And that will happen when EROI hits about 1.5 - 2.

 

And yet we still have oil, even though we should have been bone dry by the year 2000 and hitching our cars back up to horses. And the reason we have oil is because technology has improved and we've been able to get to more difficult reserves. Now, you may argue that oil extraction technology has stopped and this time for sure, 50 years means 50 years. OK then, just as I said, find a substitute, market it, and become the 21st Century Rockefeller.

 

Really? We should not use our oil today because the already existing and rapidly developing/improving alternative forms of energy will somehow disappear in 100-150 years, there'll be no solar power, wind power, nuclear reactions will stop happening between today and 2117? Dude, you really worry too much.

 

It's funny but all the people overly hyped on Solar or electric, must not have read up on the issue with the metals required to produce batteries to store that energy. Wanna talk finite? The volume of batteries we might need would be too great to support everyone. So we exchange one problem for a bigger one.

Green energy MUST BE STORED. Unless someone thinks of another way to do it, we've got a problem if certain govts make oil production too difficult.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Saudis are cutting production by 1.5 million bpd, diverting more oil directly to integrated downstream manufacturing. They have a good bit of solar and hysolar .. and are developing nuclear desalination which also generates cheap electricity.

Additionally they are developing geothermal sources all along the Western mountain ridge.

 

Do you mean like lithium?

 

Oil comes out of the ground, is shipped to a refinery and ends up in the gas tank of your car. Don't let crazy environmentalists screw with your mind there's nothing whatsoever wrong with it. If you want to live like peasants 200 years ago go ahead and outlaw fossile fuels.

 

Im from Germany and our elecrtricity cost have grown because of the so called "Energiewende". We (i mean the electricity consumer, only many Companies are being freed) have to subsisize mainly solar and wind but also biogas and some other stuff, it is finnced by a bonus fee on our electricity prives, its at the moment at 6,88 Eurocent per Kilowatt-hour. So it costet the german citizen 31 billion Euro (32,73 billion usd) (source:Institut für deutsche Wirtschaft). But Wind and solar still only make 18% of the electricity-mix. To top that all at some windy, sunny Summerdays we had to export electricity at negative prives (Because we can store only a tiny piece of it) and if we have a day without wind and sun it can get difficult to maintain electrical care and we have to import electricity at high prices.
In my opinion the only good CO2 free electricity producer are water and nuclear in the moment.

 

Peak Oil was always a myth.. and the Saudis are very moral people.

 

Third generation and later alternative fuels are the answer. For example, biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen can be derived from algae. Algae can yield up to 5000 gallons of biodiesel per acre-year - about ten times better than the next best option. At best we get about 100 gallons per acre-year from corn-ethanol. So algae is about 50 times more efficient per unit area. And there is more than enough land or water area to completely replace the nation's oil supply using algae farms.

Beyond that, algae-derived fuels are carbon neutral.

This IS the silver bullet.

It may be algae or possibly hybridized or genetically modified bacteria, but the solutions are only a couple of dollars away at the pump.

It is all a matter of the price at the pump. The last time I checked, biodiesel from algae was down to about $5 a gallon; down from about $30 a gallon ten years ago.

DARPA is actually working to produce algae-derived fuels in the battlefield.

 

And the day will come when Germany exports wind and solar electricity at a profit to other nations because it will be cheaper for them than buying fossil fuels to produce their own electricity.

 

The military have been adopting alternative energy like solar, wind and tidal generation for a while now. The cost in equipment and lives to transport fossil fuels for generators to remote areas of the battlefield can be eliminated by providing solar panels instead. And yes, the Pentagon is planning for wars based upon the scarcity of fossil fuels so they understand the need for alternative biofuel sources to keep the planes flying and the vehicles moving.

 

Because of logistical issues, battlefield fuel costs around $100 per gallon. So beyond issues of scarcity, fuel in the battlefield is insanely expensive. Producing it onsite eliminates a vast range of logistical issues as well as cost.

That this drove DARPA to get involved is great news for the entire planet.

Boeing tested algae oil in a 737 and it outperformed standard aviation fuel.

 

Im not saying we should not invest in renewables, but to spend nearly a trillion before you even know how to save the electricity is just not a good idea.

 

Electricity can be "saved" in various ways ranging from batteries to heated salts to water tanks. That the investment in those areas has lagged is probably because the need for them has not been a priority until recently. Once it comes to the attention of the public, like now, the priorities will change accordingly.