How important is energy independence?

I believe climate change is real because scientists say it is. The majority of them, in fact. The people who say it isn't real are the big energy companies, and people who AREN'T scientists. But that is just what I feel and I know everyone isn't right. So, yes, to me there is a slim chance I'm wrong.

But what I do KNOW, is that fossil fuels will run out someday. They ARE a temporary resource no matter how you look at it. Some argue that they'll run out soon, as in the next 100 years. Some argue that it takes longer. No one really knows because technology keeps improving and hell, who knows, maybe in 50 years we will be able to extract minerals and resources from the core of the earth and live forever on that. We just don't know.

Back to what I was saying though. It is clear we need an alternative energy to address our current energy providers. Not only are they going to run out, but when they become scarce the price will increase dramatically and cause major problems in the world.

IT TAKES FOSSIL FUELS TO CREATE RENEWABLES!

My theory, even if you don't believe in global warming, I think everyone should support investing in renewable energy. We don't want to be the country trying to build solar arrays and turbines when gas is 9 dollars a gallon.

Look at what other countries across the world are doing. They are INVESTING in renewables.

I say INVESTING for a reason. All Renewables eventually have a pay back period. It may take many years, but eventually THEY PAY FOR THEMSELVES.

This is why I wouldn't have a problem with the government spending massive amounts of money in this area. To me there will be a positive return on investment no matter what.

Wind and solar provide ZERO energy on windless nights. Both have a limited geographical range of practicality. Wind is extremely flaky and unreliable with huge problems predicting which days of the week they will contribute if at all. Modern societies don't survive on iffy power systems.

Contrary to your assertion -- many countries are now severely backing off the huge investments that they've made in these technologies for the little increases they've achieved in powering their grids reliably.

And fossil fuel companies have NOT stymied the experiment of fielding wind and solar. In fact -- not too long ago -- BP was the world's leader in large scale solar installations until it proved too costly for them. Many other oil companies have HUGE investments in renewables.

The best applications for renewables is to use them OFF THE GRID for production of chemicals, desalinized water, hydrogen and other commodities that can be manufactured a variable rate to match the availability of wind/solar.

Wind/Solar are NOT alternatives -- they are SUPPLEMENTS. And we best accept the limits of their contributions and start planning for replacing obsolete EXISTING generators and future demand..

IF gas hits $9 a gallon -- it has virtually NOTHING to do with wind/solar since those are ELECTRICITY generators not transportation fuels. This general public confusion is frightening. We ARE energy independent right now for electricity generation, but NOT for transportation. And the best solution for energy independence in transportation is actually fuel cells, not batteries. Fuel cells that COULD run off (nat gas) or hydrogen made OFF LINE by renewables. Without creating a project for doubling grid capacity or complexity.

Wind and solar is most effective in a singular environment. In other words, if you have solar panels and a smaller wind turbine on your property, you take the electricity that is generated and store it in batteries for use on that property. Basically, the system is off the grid. Then any electricity needed from the grid is just used as backup. Trying to create massive amounts of electricity from windfarms does not work well, because those wind farms are usually too far away from where the electricity will be used. In moving the created electricity from the source to the end user, a great deal of it is lost over distance. This is what makes wind farms much less effective.
 
Not even remotely important. It's a good applause line for politicians, but it's not realistic without major shifts in infrastructure. I do enjoy the recent rhetorical shift to "North American energy independence" though. I'm guessing the hope is that people will ignore the word "North", but you get to claim success based on Canadian tar sands.
 
Not even remotely important. It's a good applause line for politicians, but it's not realistic without major shifts in infrastructure. I do enjoy the recent rhetorical shift to "North American energy independence" though. I'm guessing the hope is that people will ignore the word "North", but you get to claim success based on Canadian tar sands.

Even a blind pig.....
 
I believe climate change is real because scientists say it is. The majority of them, in fact. The people who say it isn't real are the big energy companies, and people who AREN'T scientists. But that is just what I feel and I know everyone isn't right. So, yes, to me there is a slim chance I'm wrong.

But what I do KNOW, is that fossil fuels will run out someday. They ARE a temporary resource no matter how you look at it. Some argue that they'll run out soon, as in the next 100 years. Some argue that it takes longer. No one really knows because technology keeps improving and hell, who knows, maybe in 50 years we will be able to extract minerals and resources from the core of the earth and live forever on that. We just don't know.

Back to what I was saying though. It is clear we need an alternative energy to address our current energy providers. Not only are they going to run out, but when they become scarce the price will increase dramatically and cause major problems in the world.

IT TAKES FOSSIL FUELS TO CREATE RENEWABLES!

My theory, even if you don't believe in global warming, I think everyone should support investing in renewable energy. We don't want to be the country trying to build solar arrays and turbines when gas is 9 dollars a gallon.

Look at what other countries across the world are doing. They are INVESTING in renewables.

I say INVESTING for a reason. All Renewables eventually have a pay back period. It may take many years, but eventually THEY PAY FOR THEMSELVES.

This is why I wouldn't have a problem with the government spending massive amounts of money in this area. To me there will be a positive return on investment no matter what.

Wind and solar provide ZERO energy on windless nights. Both have a limited geographical range of practicality. Wind is extremely flaky and unreliable with huge problems predicting which days of the week they will contribute if at all. Modern societies don't survive on iffy power systems.

Contrary to your assertion -- many countries are now severely backing off the huge investments that they've made in these technologies for the little increases they've achieved in powering their grids reliably.

And fossil fuel companies have NOT stymied the experiment of fielding wind and solar. In fact -- not too long ago -- BP was the world's leader in large scale solar installations until it proved too costly for them. Many other oil companies have HUGE investments in renewables.

The best applications for renewables is to use them OFF THE GRID for production of chemicals, desalinized water, hydrogen and other commodities that can be manufactured a variable rate to match the availability of wind/solar.

Wind/Solar are NOT alternatives -- they are SUPPLEMENTS. And we best accept the limits of their contributions and start planning for replacing obsolete EXISTING generators and future demand..

IF gas hits $9 a gallon -- it has virtually NOTHING to do with wind/solar since those are ELECTRICITY generators not transportation fuels. This general public confusion is frightening. We ARE energy independent right now for electricity generation, but NOT for transportation. And the best solution for energy independence in transportation is actually fuel cells, not batteries. Fuel cells that COULD run off (nat gas) or hydrogen made OFF LINE by renewables. Without creating a project for doubling grid capacity or complexity.

Wind and solar is most effective in a singular environment. In other words, if you have solar panels and a smaller wind turbine on your property, you take the electricity that is generated and store it in batteries for use on that property. Basically, the system is off the grid. Then any electricity needed from the grid is just used as backup. Trying to create massive amounts of electricity from windfarms does not work well, because those wind farms are usually too far away from where the electricity will be used. In moving the created electricity from the source to the end user, a great deal of it is lost over distance. This is what makes wind farms much less effective.

When it comes to moving power, it does not matter what the source is. Transmitting power at high voltages minimizes losses, as loss is a function of current, which is reduced by increasing the voltage.

Electric power transmission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The argument for localizing has nothing really to do with tranmission issues, and all with modular storage, which cannot be done economically at the macro scale. What is lost when going to micro generation is the redundancy of the system, as well as the efficiency of scale.
 
I believe climate change is real because scientists say it is. The majority of them, in fact. The people who say it isn't real are the big energy companies, and people who AREN'T scientists. But that is just what I feel and I know everyone isn't right. So, yes, to me there is a slim chance I'm wrong.

But what I do KNOW, is that fossil fuels will run out someday. They ARE a temporary resource no matter how you look at it. Some argue that they'll run out soon, as in the next 100 years. Some argue that it takes longer. No one really knows because technology keeps improving and hell, who knows, maybe in 50 years we will be able to extract minerals and resources from the core of the earth and live forever on that. We just don't know.

Back to what I was saying though. It is clear we need an alternative energy to address our current energy providers. Not only are they going to run out, but when they become scarce the price will increase dramatically and cause major problems in the world.

IT TAKES FOSSIL FUELS TO CREATE RENEWABLES!

My theory, even if you don't believe in global warming, I think everyone should support investing in renewable energy. We don't want to be the country trying to build solar arrays and turbines when gas is 9 dollars a gallon.

Look at what other countries across the world are doing. They are INVESTING in renewables.

I say INVESTING for a reason. All Renewables eventually have a pay back period. It may take many years, but eventually THEY PAY FOR THEMSELVES.

This is why I wouldn't have a problem with the government spending massive amounts of money in this area. To me there will be a positive return on investment no matter what.

Wind and solar provide ZERO energy on windless nights. Both have a limited geographical range of practicality. Wind is extremely flaky and unreliable with huge problems predicting which days of the week they will contribute if at all. Modern societies don't survive on iffy power systems.

Contrary to your assertion -- many countries are now severely backing off the huge investments that they've made in these technologies for the little increases they've achieved in powering their grids reliably.

And fossil fuel companies have NOT stymied the experiment of fielding wind and solar. In fact -- not too long ago -- BP was the world's leader in large scale solar installations until it proved too costly for them. Many other oil companies have HUGE investments in renewables.

The best applications for renewables is to use them OFF THE GRID for production of chemicals, desalinized water, hydrogen and other commodities that can be manufactured a variable rate to match the availability of wind/solar.

Wind/Solar are NOT alternatives -- they are SUPPLEMENTS. And we best accept the limits of their contributions and start planning for replacing obsolete EXISTING generators and future demand..

IF gas hits $9 a gallon -- it has virtually NOTHING to do with wind/solar since those are ELECTRICITY generators not transportation fuels. This general public confusion is frightening. We ARE energy independent right now for electricity generation, but NOT for transportation. And the best solution for energy independence in transportation is actually fuel cells, not batteries. Fuel cells that COULD run off (nat gas) or hydrogen made OFF LINE by renewables. Without creating a project for doubling grid capacity or complexity.

Wind and solar is most effective in a singular environment. In other words, if you have solar panels and a smaller wind turbine on your property, you take the electricity that is generated and store it in batteries for use on that property. Basically, the system is off the grid. Then any electricity needed from the grid is just used as backup. Trying to create massive amounts of electricity from windfarms does not work well, because those wind farms are usually too far away from where the electricity will be used. In moving the created electricity from the source to the end user, a great deal of it is lost over distance. This is what makes wind farms much less effective.

Wind has the other drawback of having to have a 24/7/365 PRIMARY generator sitting in parallel with it -- ready to switch on/off. That switch is nowhere near efficient, since you can't take a fossil plant up/down like a lightswitch when the wind blows for 20 minutes.

You also can't CONTRACT FOR IT -- like every other generator on the grid because delivery can't be reliably scheduled. Which means that more wind you build -- you have to con investors into building matching PRIMARY generator capability that will sit IDLE or underutilized because the GOVT MANDATES that wind MUST be carried on the grid FIRST.

So ratepayers pay TWICE for facilities and maintenance and overlapping generation. And those costs are NEVER charged to wind generators.

If everyone decided to go off-grid, the enviro damage from Millions of tons of batteries would be immense. Usually one chooses to be grid tied and sell back excess OR store the excess in a 1/2 Ton battery farm. Doing both is counterproductive and complicated. So most folks who are off-grid storers use Propane as a back-up..

But USING wind/solar INDUSTRIALLY off grid to produce things at a VARIABLE RATE -- like I suggested a couple posts above is a GREAT concept. And perhaps just as big a market for these renewables.
 
RIGZONE - North America Energy Independence Hinges on Right Govt Policies

North American energy independence can be achieved by the end of the decade, but only if government policies encouraging development of domestic oil and gas exploration and production are put in place, according to energy industry experts and market analysts testifying Thursday before a Congressional committee.

Several independent reports released in 2012 indicate North America can produce enough oil and natural gas to meet America's energy demands, possibly by the end of the decade.

Ain't gonna happen. Certainly NOT under Obama.
 
We don't need to concentrate on fossil fuels, that is not a long term answer. We need to encourage the production of bio- fuels and alternative (photo-voltaics, wind power) in forms that will meet our power needs.
 
We don't need to concentrate on fossil fuels, that is not a long term answer. We need to encourage the production of bio- fuels and alternative (photo-voltaics, wind power) in forms that will meet our power needs.

Hydrocarbons ARE the long term answer. They just aren't the ULTIMATE answer. Why throw out the long-term for the ultimate? It's a baby/bathwater thing.
 
Sure, we can wait until all the fossil fuels are used up but then it will be too late to bring in another source of energy. If we begin to develope it now then by the time it matures we will still have some fossil fuels left. At present consumption (increasing) rates we will be out of fossil fuels in less than one hundred years. It is going to take at least fifty years to bring alternative sources to the level that we need.
 
Why isn't the U.S. a totally marketable independent nation?

Toaster ovens, can operners, asphalt spreaders...

Are we not a nation of independent asphalt spreaders?

Energy goes around the world. Deal with it.
 
Sure, we can wait until all the fossil fuels are used up but then it will be too late to bring in another source of energy. If we begin to develope it now then by the time it matures we will still have some fossil fuels left. At present consumption (increasing) rates we will be out of fossil fuels in less than one hundred years. It is going to take at least fifty years to bring alternative sources to the level that we need.

What do you think is gonna change for "renewables" in 50 years? BIGGER windmills that don't turn 2 days a week?

We've had solar panel EV tech for 50 years ALREADY. It's NOT a new or particularly explosive technology. There's nothing on the renewable list that is actually clean and renewable and can provide 24/7/365 power.. Those are not ALTERNATIVES -- they are SUPPLEMENTS at best...
 

Forum List

Back
Top