How important is energy independence?

[flacaltenn]

The government does not control this matter.

As long as we allow them to continue to THINK they will control it -- we are wasting valuable time and money getting to solid engineered solutions..

The FEDERAL role should be limited to leases, public safety and STRATEGIC basic research funding.

Things like Yucca Mtn are BROKEN promises to perform an actual service to centralize nuclear waste storage and handling. It's NOT just waste from nuclear plants, but from every hospital and many industries as well.. That's ONE example of STRATEGIC tasks that the Feds SHOULD be doing but aren't taking seriously...

 

[antagon]

The government does not control this matter.

As long as we allow them to continue to THINK they will control it -- we are wasting valuable time and money getting to solid engineered solutions..

The FEDERAL role should be limited to leases, public safety and STRATEGIC basic research funding.

Things like Yucca Mtn are BROKEN promises to perform an actual service to centralize nuclear waste storage and handling. It's NOT just waste from nuclear plants, but from every hospital and many industries as well.. That's ONE example of STRATEGIC tasks that the Feds SHOULD be doing but aren't taking seriously...

Businesses will approach the government and ask for some relief here and there, but the government has few chips to force domestic resource exploitation on domestic-derived producers.

We've already got our oil. We need to open doors in Africa for our brands the way China does for their house brand.

 

[Bill Angel]

There is absolutely no down side to energy independence. Along with the reasons already mentioned, it will produce that three letter word, J-O-B-S! as Biden so intelligently pointed out!

One big issue is not how much energy the US produces, but how efficiently that energy is used. For example, the energy efficiency of the electricity distribution power grid could be significantly improved. But to make such improvements requires large capital expenditures. That trillion dollars that the US has spent on the war on terror would have been much better spent upgrading the US electricity generation and distribution infrastructure. And I'm certain it wouldn't cost a trillion dollars to accomplish this goal. Accomplishing this task would also create a lot of decent paying jobs.

 

[martybegan]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I say we need to work on getting homes off the grid. I'm tired of all these stupid bills. Water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, phone, etc. And each one of these items is taxed, some of them have more than 1/2 doz different taxes on them. How about we go back to building smart homes? Homes that are designed for whatever climate you live in. Like here in the pacific northwest we could save a lot of money simply by having cisterns, a place for the water to go when it rains so that we can use that water later for our gardens etc. Wind turbines should be allowed in the cities so that we could save some money on electricity. It's getting to the point that we are going to have to sell our house just because we can't afford all the utilities for it, and that's not even including the taxes. And no, my house wasn't in a city when I bought it, but it is now, and I haven't moved. I feel like we are getting crushed under all these regulations.

Taking electrical supply local removes the efficiency created by using a intergrated grid. You lose economy of scale when it comes to generation, and the ability to send excess load somewhere when you are generating more than you need.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I say we need to work on getting homes off the grid. I'm tired of all these stupid bills. Water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, phone, etc. And each one of these items is taxed, some of them have more than 1/2 doz different taxes on them. How about we go back to building smart homes? Homes that are designed for whatever climate you live in. Like here in the pacific northwest we could save a lot of money simply by having cisterns, a place for the water to go when it rains so that we can use that water later for our gardens etc. Wind turbines should be allowed in the cities so that we could save some money on electricity. It's getting to the point that we are going to have to sell our house just because we can't afford all the utilities for it, and that's not even including the taxes. And no, my house wasn't in a city when I bought it, but it is now, and I haven't moved. I feel like we are getting crushed under all these regulations.

Taking electrical supply local removes the efficiency created by using a intergrated grid. You lose economy of scale when it comes to generation, and the ability to send excess load somewhere when you are generating more than you need.

Yep.. Contracts are the backbone of the system. And the grid is the delivery route.

HOWEVER -- in order to avoid unnecessary expansion of the grid -- it might be useful to isolate certain sectors of the grid.. For instance, refineries, large chemical producers or hydrogen production MIGHT be grid isolated to produce on the variable delivery rate of wind and solar. Because the goods produced by a hydrogen factory are a natural form of energy storage.

 

[martybegan]

I say we need to work on getting homes off the grid. I'm tired of all these stupid bills. Water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, phone, etc. And each one of these items is taxed, some of them have more than 1/2 doz different taxes on them. How about we go back to building smart homes? Homes that are designed for whatever climate you live in. Like here in the pacific northwest we could save a lot of money simply by having cisterns, a place for the water to go when it rains so that we can use that water later for our gardens etc. Wind turbines should be allowed in the cities so that we could save some money on electricity. It's getting to the point that we are going to have to sell our house just because we can't afford all the utilities for it, and that's not even including the taxes. And no, my house wasn't in a city when I bought it, but it is now, and I haven't moved. I feel like we are getting crushed under all these regulations.

Taking electrical supply local removes the efficiency created by using a intergrated grid. You lose economy of scale when it comes to generation, and the ability to send excess load somewhere when you are generating more than you need.

Yep.. Contracts are the backbone of the system. And the grid is the delivery route.

HOWEVER -- in order to avoid unnecessary expansion of the grid -- it might be useful to isolate certain sectors of the grid.. For instance, refineries, large chemical producers or hydrogen production MIGHT be grid isolated to produce on the variable delivery rate of wind and solar. Because the goods produced by a hydrogen factory are a natural form of energy storage.

It would be an interesting method. I would say the refinery would go with a gas turbine, as those can be turned on/off quicker compared to a liquid/solid burner/boiler setup.

Even for grid use, a combined plant using solar/wind when availible and natural gas turbines for balancing would still result in less net use of fossil fuels. The problem is that renewable advocates often dont want partial solutions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Taking electrical supply local removes the efficiency created by using a intergrated grid. You lose economy of scale when it comes to generation, and the ability to send excess load somewhere when you are generating more than you need.

Yep.. Contracts are the backbone of the system. And the grid is the delivery route.

HOWEVER -- in order to avoid unnecessary expansion of the grid -- it might be useful to isolate certain sectors of the grid.. For instance, refineries, large chemical producers or hydrogen production MIGHT be grid isolated to produce on the variable delivery rate of wind and solar. Because the goods produced by a hydrogen factory are a natural form of energy storage.

It would be an interesting method. I would say the refinery would go with a gas turbine, as those can be turned on/off quicker compared to a liquid/solid burner/boiler setup.

Even for grid use, a combined plant using solar/wind when availible and natural gas turbines for balancing would still result in less net use of fossil fuels. The problem is that renewable advocates often dont want partial solutions.

Those self-powered OFF GRID renewable applications are the best hope for a vibrant market in renewables. The chemical or hydrogen producers could determine how badly they wanted to produce in the absence of "free energy" from wind and sun.. In the case of hydrogen production -- you can't afford to make it and store it with conventional energy costs. It takes almost as much power to separate water (or release Hydrogen from long chain carbon or biological methods) as it supplies as a fuel..

So unless you're getting your power virtually free -- these things won't happen in large scale. Desalinization of water is another example. The only roadblock to widespread expansion of THAT PROCESS is the cost of power.. Cali could stop fighting over water if they followed this prescription for desalinizing water for LA/San Diego.

THAT would jazz up the "alternative" folks for sure.. They are trying to push these things into the GRID instead of defining free-standing applications to RELIEVE the grid..

 

[Wolfmann]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I would suggest you watch the movie carbon nation to get an idea of that the issues are and surprisingly who supports them. You will also see that alot of it is the inability of legislators at all levels to stop living in the past.

Wolfman 24

 

[Swagger]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

Until some form of power storage more efficent then current batteries or using multi-level fluid potential energy storage than intermittent forms of power such as solar and wind will never be able to take over a portion of our grid's base load.

The big holdout is fusion power, which always seems to be "25 years away." Until then for electrical generation fission based nuclear using the most modern type of reactor possible is the only way to preserve out stocks of fossil fuels.

We should be exploiting our own stocks of fossils as much as possible, along with research into the areas above.

And using current nuclear. It is sinful the resistance we have to using nuclear. The amount of pollution it creates is miniscule compared with other forms of power generation that we are using right now and the danger is extremely small.

Indeed. And despite what the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth insist, it has been proven beyond all doubt that a ruptured reactor will not result in a mushroom cloud.

 

[IGetItAlready]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

Sounds kind of like an "all of the above" approach.
Now where have I heard that before?

 

[Avatar4321]

Very important

 

[flacaltenn]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I would suggest you watch the movie carbon nation to get an idea of that the issues are and surprisingly who supports them. You will also see that alot of it is the inability of legislators at all levels to stop living in the past.

Wolfman 24

It's not a matter of "living in the past". It's a matter of finding ALTERNATIVES to the past. Wind and Solar are the best on the list and THEY are supplements at best -- not alternatives. And since no enviro wants to build out more hydro --- there's NOTHING else clean and actually green on that futuristic list of yours. Fantasies about 50GW of wind are not gonna power Topeka next Tuesday when the wind doesn't blow. And even when the wind DOES blow -- you're tossing the Primary generator into the ground. The PRIMARY generator will always be a 24/7/365 power source.

Our society can't run on iffy sketchy. Or iffy sketchy mixed with flaky.

Geothermal is a dirty mining operation and is not truely renewable due to wellhead cooling and massive corrosion of the plumbing.

Biomass combustion is an even DIRTIER offense to enviro sensistivities.. Literally burning garbage is CLEAN and GREEN? And the zero carbon nonsense is a complete sham unless your plowing up asphalt to plant the new energy material.

You got "not much" if this is your "future".. But Sell Sell Sell.. There are plenty of suckers out there that want to feel like they are saving the planet by charging their EV from a coal fired plant..

 

[FJO]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

There is nothing "green" about energy provided by gasohol (Jimmy Carter's favorite term for the crap that costs more in pollution, dollars and manufacturing than it is worth) the crap that converts precious food stuff into ineffective parody and imitation of energy, while the most abundant natural energy resource - COAL - is demonized, maligned and bad-mouthed by Democrats/liberals/progressives and the Employment Prevention Agency, aka EPA.

If these same do-gooders spent as much money and effort to develop methods to burn coal cleanly as they spend at tilting at useless windmills, no one on this side of the Atlantic would ever need the sheiks of airplane hijackers and followers of a misogynist pederast.

Furthermore, those despicable Republican redneck coal miners of Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee and Virginia deserve to be unemployed, because they had the temerity to work for a living from the time they were young and not getting their degree from communist professors who never worked a day in their lives.

 

[auditor0007]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I've always believed it best that we use other country's natural resources first and save ours for a rainy day , or better yet, the day when we've used everyone else's resources up. We have too many people living on this planet and too few resources. Now, like everyone, I do hope that we eventually develop enough renewable energy to serve the needs of everyone; however, I can also see a path where alternative energies never pan out, we run out of fossil fuels and we only have enough in renewable energy to support a much smaller population. Can you imagine the finger pointing then?

 

[Againsheila]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I've always believed it best that we use other country's natural resources first and save ours for a rainy day , or better yet, the day when we've used everyone else's resources up. We have too many people living on this planet and too few resources. Now, like everyone, I do hope that we eventually develop enough renewable energy to serve the needs of everyone; however, I can also see a path where alternative energies never pan out, we run out of fossil fuels and we only have enough in renewable energy to support a much smaller population. Can you imagine the finger pointing then?

I don't think the 3 big oil companies want us to become "green" or independent of them. Same with the energy monopolies in all the big cities. If we could put up wind turbines in our backyard, if we could put up solar power, etc., they'd be out of luck.

 

[FA_Q2]

Mitt brought this up in his speech last night. I'd like to hear some views on this. I'm not an expert, but to me, it seems incredibly important. We're sending billions overseas to countries that would prefer to see us wiped off the map. We're putting millions into green energy initiatives that don't seem close to being able to support the energy demand of this country all alone.

I'm definitely in favor of green energy, but until it can stand on it's own without being artificially propped up via government policy and regulation to limit the production of traditional means (coal, gas, etc), we need to be actively allowing domestic companies to produce and supply coal, gas, nuclear, etc, responsibly of course.

What say you?

I've always believed it best that we use other country's natural resources first and save ours for a rainy day , or better yet, the day when we've used everyone else's resources up. We have too many people living on this planet and too few resources. Now, like everyone, I do hope that we eventually develop enough renewable energy to serve the needs of everyone; however, I can also see a path where alternative energies never pan out, we run out of fossil fuels and we only have enough in renewable energy to support a much smaller population. Can you imagine the finger pointing then?

The problem with that; we are going to save our resources up until the day they no longer become a useful commodity…

That is not a good idea. We should use them now, prioritize the other places we acquire it from and then invest some of the windfall in discovering and capturing new sources.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not important at all. Any more than it is important we become independent in any other commodity. For people worried about "being at the mercy of OPEC" they are just as much at our mercy as we are at theirs. Trade is a two way street, with both parties benefitting. Otherwise they wouldnt do it.
The system we have now we have because it provides the cheapest energy we can get. I dont see anything wrong with it. I first heard "energy indepedent" from Nixon in the early 1970s. Every president has promised it. All have failed. We could become energy independent but the cost would be enormous. And for what?

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not important at all. Any more than it is important we become independent in any other commodity. For people worried about "being at the mercy of OPEC" they are just as much at our mercy as we are at theirs. Trade is a two way street, with both parties benefitting. Otherwise they wouldnt do it.
The system we have now we have because it provides the cheapest energy we can get. I dont see anything wrong with it. I first heard "energy indepedent" from Nixon in the early 1970s. Every president has promised it. All have failed. We could become energy independent but the cost would be enormous. And for what?

The cost is enormous to drop it in wholesale. The cost is virtually nothing to change some basic policies and move in that direction incrementally and intelligently.

There is no cost unless you want to force such a thing to occur. The intelligent way is to incentivize through various means.

 

[daphillenium]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.