The U.S. will become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020 and energy independent by 2030

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
But I'm concerned about air quality and water quality.



I'm concerned about that too.

But I'm more bothered by how these things are negatively affecting people right now.

I'm all for "right now" concerns. That's why I am sick of hearing about all these "one day/maybe" technologies which are not helping us right now.

I'm concerned about people and communities too, kuwisdelu (damned if I know what your screenname means or how to pronounce it).

This is why I want to see less of these monster-sized regional utilities (such as Connecticut Light & Power servicing the entire state of Connecticut) and more of smaller local-level utilities (like Chicoppee Electric Light Company serving JUST the city of Chicoppe, Massachusetts). Smaller scale enetrprises which set their sites on servicing smaller geographic areas are better IMO.

It took over two weeks last year in 2011 after the October 30th snow storm for Connecticut Light & Power to repair thousands and thousands of broken electrical lines throughout their grid. Those fancy rich Connecticut suburbanites were in the dark for two solid weeks. (And boy were they PISSED!!)

However ....

Up here in Massachsuetts, Holyoke Gas & Electric, which is a small utility company serving JUST the city of Holyoke, Massachusetts, was back on line in less thna 24 hoiurs.

Same with Chicopee Electric Light Company servicing JUST the city of Chicoppee --back on line in less than 24 hours.

Same with Westfeld Gas & Electric servicing JUST the city of Westfield, Massachusetts --back in line in less than 24 hours.

It's easier when only about 100 electrical lines go down over an area of less than 40 square miles (40 square miles is about the area of a typical small-to-medium-sized city here in New England). But it's a lot harder when over a hundred thousand lines go down over an area of about 20,000 square miles (roughly half the geographic area of the State of Connecticut).

If your tribe had its own small hyrdo-electric dam or its own geothermal generator plant and limited 100% of the sale of its energy to the tribe, then that utility would take good and proper care of your people because they would be that utilty's ONLY customers. But these huge mega-corps that come in and devour the local resources then pack up and leave after bleeding them dry -- no loyalty, no connection, no community, no human obligation whatsoever. Just corporate vampirism and hit-and-run capitalism at its worst.

Smaller is better in these instances. Local is better too. Smaller and local allows for ease of management and greater flexibility when a crisies arises. And local ownership has a human factor to it in that you KNOW the people you are servicing. You know them and you know their kids and you probably even play racketball with them and go to church with them. But when corporate headquarters is somewhere off in Dubai or Shanghai, what incentive is there for a company to move their ass a little faster to get your power back on for you?

I fear for the day when we STOP with the fossil fuels and say "Wow, maybe we need to retool our entire nation's energy infrastucture to something else. But the current infrastructure of super-regional utilities is just so vast that a retrofit would take years and trillions of dollars!" I fear that a triage situation will be resorted to as far as who gets serviced first and more thoroughly. I further fear for how corporate vampire capitalism will respond to such a call for triage, and I fear for which people groups (depending on what regions they live in and how much of a voice they do not have) will get sacrificed on the altar of "progress."
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Then let's see some water. (I'm thirsty.)
The Solyndra story is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
Although the company was once touted for its unusual technology, plummeting silicon prices led to the company's being unable to compete with more conventional solar panels.
They're making lots of "rain buckets" in China, and they're cheaper than Solyndra and other US businesses envisioned. The demand is increasing, and it's bound to drive up innovation and drive down costs. Even though it's a fairly small amount at a time (as the link to Zoombie's other thread shows, a "breakthrough" may give 30 percent increase in efficiency or 20 percent lowering in cost, but this won't be enough by itself to make solar feasible), a series of such enhancements over enough years WILL make alternatives feasible.

The current lowering of oil and gas prices might be "bad" in that they lower the pressure to produce alternatives, on the other hand this gives more time for these alternatives to mature.
I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn't make it explicitly clear. As to the "production" side, the likelihood of becoming the world's top producer is pretty strong. That's not based on my opinion. I'm a geologist, 35 years professional experience and great and continuing familiarity with the petroleum industry. Whether you like it or not is immaterial; the opening up of immense new resources with new technology has exceeded the most favorable predictions of just a few years ago. And, something that may amaze some people, the U.S. actually is a pretty big oil producer already.
I understand that US natural gas production has boomed even more than oil production, and it leads me to wonder if it could end up being used more for transportation:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_basics.html
Natural gas [...] accounts for about a quarter of the energy used in the United States. About one-third goes to residential and commercial uses, such as heating and cooking; one-third to industrial uses; and one-third to electric power production. Although natural gas is a clean-burning alternative fuel that has long been used to power natural gas vehicles,only about one-tenth of 1% is used for transportation fuel.
I'm looking at this fancy graph of fuel prices over the last decade, and it appears natural gas has a gasoline-equivalent cost of $2.05 per gallon:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/tab/all/data_set/10326
Is anyone in a rush to make more natural-gas fueled cars?
...
Driving cars WILL result in human casualties. It's not a MIGHT. People don't die only when traffic laws get violated. People are imperfect beings driving imperfect machines in an imperfect world.
...
There is almost always a human cost to every technological action. The fight is over how much human cost is acceptable.
The "good news" is that overall, the human cost is going down. Automobile accident fatalities have been going down over the decades, even while the amount of driving is going up. Driving cars puts bad pollutants in the air, though not nearly as much as before pollution control laws were passed. Still, there are people killed every year by automotive emissions.

Fracking certainly looks like a Bad Thing for the environment near where it's done, and the problems appear to be well known now, in spite of industry's pressure to dismiss them. Here's a video I recall from a few years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A
Government is admittedly slow to make new laws even when the need is obvious (these people could sue the companies for fracking damage, but as kuwisdelu aluuded, the entity with the most money and lawyers wins), especially when (wearing my old, worn out Cynical Hat) such laws would raise the cost of a clean, low cost and strongly needed product in a bad economy that won't tolerate well an increase in costs of needed products.

And yes, that doesn't make it right.
If you want to pay a price with people, I obviously can't stop you. But that's not my vote.
If you're living in modern society, you're part of paying the price for someone dying. It's not always as blatant as the Ford Pinto exploding gas tank, but life always has a cost-benefit analysis whether anyone notices or calculates it or not, but overall, modern life is safer than in previous generations, and the further back you compare, the safer we are now. It's not a problem to be upset over what fracking does to nearby areas, such concern is how things were made safer for most of us now, but while we are on average safer than ever before, there is no absolute safety.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Frankly, I think fossil fuels need to be, should be more expensive right now.

I don't care if the economy is bad.

If there's going to be a human cost, let's share it.
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
Frankly, I think fossil fuels need to be, should be more expensive right now.

I don't care if the economy is bad.

If there's going to be a human cost, let's share it.


Share the human cost? My my my, this is no time to experiment with Socialism [/Sarak Palin].

Sharing costs.

Sharing profits.

Sharing losses.

Sharing blame.

One defintion of fascism is: When the government protects the private enjoyment of business profits, and ramrods the public absorption of business losses.

I have no problem with sharing the human cost. But I believe there are many who would use their substantial political power (ie: mega-corporation lobbyists) to prevent such a thing. Sure, Washington will gladly make us share the burden of rescuing a huge bank from going under. But no way will they share our pain in lost rivers and decimated ghost towns.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I understand that US natural gas production has boomed even more than oil production, and it leads me to wonder if it could end up being used more for transportation:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_basics.html
I'm looking at this fancy graph of fuel prices over the last decade, and it appears natural gas has a gasoline-equivalent cost of $2.05 per gallon:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/tab/all/data_set/10326
Is anyone in a rush to make more natural-gas fueled cars?

As a technical clarification, note that "clean-burning" natural gas should be rephrased to "cleaner-burning" natural gas. The major component of natural gas is methane, the lightest hydrocarbon molecule. As such, it contains slightly more than half the proportional carbon content of octane, a principal component of standard liquid gasoline. Accordingly, a somewhat lower emission of CO2 in the burning process.

But not negligible.

caw