Energy Independence

Discussion in 'Economy' started by code1211, May 12, 2012.

  1. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845
    It seems to me that it would be a good thing if the USA was energy independent.

    Is it is or is it ain't?

    Obama seems to be actively working against the possibility that we could ever be energy independent and I don't hear allot of political leaders putting this forward. We obviously could do this with the stores of Coal and Natural gas and the sudden availability of oil from shale.

    In ten years, we could be an OPEC nation instead of an OPEC slave.

    Would this be good or bad?
     
  2. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    it would be good to be independent and bad to pollute
     
  3. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845



    I should think that if there is any way to cleanly burn home grown fuels, the USA would have the best chance of discovering and employing it.
     
  4. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    who would disagree with that?
     
  5. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,908
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,892
    Uncle Ferd hopin' it goes back down to $15/barrel...
    :cool:
    OPEC Can't Get Along, And That's Good
    6/05/12 --- For us here in the U.S., including drivers looking for cheap gas, the likely dissent in the upcoming OPEC meetings will be a good thing.

     
  6. BakshisMouse
    Offline

    BakshisMouse BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +69
    No one is afraid that our natural gas and coal supplies will deplete. We could use those to generate electricity for many centuries in the future. The environment might be the worse for it, though.

    Also, the USA only has enough proven reserves of oil to supply itself a little less than three years supply of oil at current consumption rates. That's only if we extract every single drop of the proven reserves from the land, putting aside any regard for habitat destruction. Despite what you might have been told, biodiversity is a $300 billion service the earth provides us. To toss it all away would be foolhardy.
     
  7. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    Throw it all away? All 2% of the total portion provided?

    The idea is not to use only oil. It is to use everything. If Compressed Natural Gas is what we have, then that is what we should use. If it's coal, then use coal.

    A three year supply of oil? That is not counting the reserves on the coastal shelves and in the Gulf that the Big 0 has placed off limits?

    The problem here is not the natural resources. It's the national will to do it. The time has come and the place is here. It's got to be a part of the national economic recovery plan.

    If the USA goes down, we are looking at another Dark Age.
     
  8. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    CodeDownlow: "Obama seems to be actively working against the possibility that we could ever be energy independent and I don't hear allot of political leaders putting this forward. We obviously could do this with the stores of Coal and Natural gas and the sudden availability of oil from shale.

    In ten years, we could be an OPEC nation instead of an OPEC slave."

    We can't be an OPEC nation, since the 1960s, which aren't coming back. By the 1970s, our production peaked.

    We can start up hemp, in salted fields, and switchgrass, on semi-arable land, harvest, and do a much better job, making ethanol and methanol, than the subsidized cornholes do, at producing corn-ethanol, or the Brazilians do, making sugar-ethanol.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012
  9. BakshisMouse
    Offline

    BakshisMouse BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +69
    The provern reserves would last three years. I'm assuming that includes all reserves, including "off-limit" reserves. It is a significant amount of oil, though. By no mean do I think we should not drill for oil. We just need to be realistic about our capacity and the possible impact on biodiversity.
     
  10. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    But codeDownlow is too intriguing, to want hemp and switchgrass biomass, to even go into development. Look at your shit, "we could be an OPEC nation," asshole! No! Not!

    We could use German tech from WWII, to make coal into liquid fuel, and I don't see the smart people running this up, since we haven't even tried to spread switchgrass, which keeps it's roots down, when harvested.
     

Share This Page