Oil independence possible according to DoE scientist
A scientist in the U.S. Department of Energy's science and energy research unit has said "Energy independence is a realistic goal for the United State of America," by 2030. There are, of course, a few caveats to that. First is that by the word "independence," he doesn't mean not using any oil entirely -- he means getting oil consumption down to a point where our usage is "not subject to restraining or directly influenced by others as consequence of the need for oil."
That, Greene says, is an issue of economics, not one of politics or the military (inasmuch as they can be separated). The key is to get the cost of importing oil down to one-percent or less of the U.S. GDP, which, by the way, is where it was during the heady we-can-take-baths-in-oil-there's-so-much-of-it decade of 1990-2000.
Greene thinks the Energy Independence Security Act will be the guide leading the way to this kind of oil independence, due to the CAFE increase, decreased demand for thirsty vehicles, and increased production and demand for biofuels and alternative energy cars. So now that the oil situation is licked, the only thing you'll need to worry about come 2030 is paying $12 for a cob of corn.
[Source: WardsAuto]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Allan 10:39AM (6/03/2008)
That better be really awesome corn. And it better shuck and cook itself.
Reply
len simpson 10:45AM (6/03/2008)
might pay a bunch for an EAR of corn but not a cob,which were only used in Ga outhouses.
geo.stewart 9:52AM (6/04/2008)
hey Len, the South is doing their part.
we all live on dirt roads so that 3% asphalt is fer y'all yanquis up north in yer fancy cities n such an we aint got no gridlock cuz we aint got no traffic lights.
Tricky dicky 10:42AM (6/03/2008)
yes, redefining what dependence means.. Wonderful..
Has anyone talked about a reliance on foreign cars versus foreign oil? lol..
Reply
iomatic 4:56PM (6/03/2008)
Well, we're 80% corn already.
Read The Omnivore's Dilemma. The solution? Population control.
Reply
Frank 8:37AM (6/04/2008)
Well, populaion control could start by keeping out illegal immigrants. That's what caused the biggest jump in population in the US.
fer 9:10AM (6/04/2008)
whos gonna plant and harvest corn then ? americans ?
TwinTurbo3000GT 9:44AM (6/04/2008)
machines built by americans.
mk 9:47AM (6/04/2008)
Population control almost instantly begets eugenics. Don't think we want to go down that road... You might be part of the population that gets "controlled".
And, who do you think plants, fertilizes, harvests and everything else? American farmers, some of my extended family included.
Most corn production is mechanized, there aren't a whole lot of manual laborers, compared to fruits and vegetables, and other things.
Plus, paying illegal immigrants sub-minimum wages is tantamount to wage slavery. I thought we had all decided that slavery was bad.
That isn't even getting into the morality of using a year's worth of corn foodstuffs for a single nuclear family, and making it into ONE gallon of ethanol. Yeah, that's worth it... sure.
The US government has truly scroood the pooch on energy policy, in the fact that there isn't one, aside from pork barrel spending, and ethanol subsidies that are driving prices up all over the place, from the grocery store to the gas pump, and harming the economy by contributing to inflation.
Then they block all natural resource recovery from our own sources, and debate MORONIC cap and trade policies that will make this problem many times worse, not better.
Never mind that CO2 gas can't possibly be a pollutant when all the plant life on this planet requires it to breathe, and all the rest of us exhale it, as well. What is next, water as a pollutant, and we need to get rid of it, too?
When the morons in washington (both D and R) start considering the needs of the country at large, and the economy, rather than just the fashionable, well-monied environmentalist lobby, they might actually get out of the way. But I don't have that much hope. I think it is going to get much worse before people realize the truth, and force the government out of the way, by electing people who actually have some sense, common or otherwise.
No poor third world country can afford to clean up their environmental messes, or minimize them in the first place. Environmental advocates would realize that a strong US economy is BETTER for the environment than a drastically hindered one. If the economy suffers, less capital is spent minimizing the environmental effects of necessary economic activity.
henrykrinkle 10:46AM (6/03/2008)
$12 cob of corn? That can't happen, we've achieved corn independence. Oh right, the market dictates the price regardless of where it comes from. Oops.
Reply
robert bell 10:50AM (6/03/2008)
OK, a member of the Bush Administration endorsing his energy policy; sounds like a real objective analysis to me. Not!
This guy comes from the school of misdirection, defining "energy independence" in terms of GDP. That is an irrelevant metric; The United States and its economy was built/is dependent upon cheap and accessible supplies of energy for our factories, homes and autos. Any significant increase in the cost of that energy, regardless of where it comes from, is going to have an impact on national security and economic prosperity.
Until we get real and admit we must go to nuclear power for our future, all this crap about growing corn and grass is only a distraction from the inevitable. Electric powered cars, with energy from an expanded grid of nuclear power plants is the only way to keep the cost of energy down. Otherwise we are going to have to look for other sources of fossil fuels, like oil sands and coal gasification, which are very expensive vs. what we have been used to, i.e. good old sweet crude, which, by the way, is an exhaustible and increasingly expensive resource to find and extract.
Reply
rsfourever 8:09AM (6/04/2008)
i agree with you that Nuclear is the way of the (near) future. It is clean, safe, produces LOTS of energy, and the runoff can be dug into a mountain to be worried about in 5,000 years, or can just be literally put on a spaceship and flown to the sun...
really, the only problem with nuclear is that the enviro-crazies don't have it on their agenda, so it'll never happen...
Toy Yoda 1:20PM (6/04/2008)
I thought the other problem with nuclear is that it's in limited supply just like oil. I read somewhere we have a 100 year supply of nuclear fuel. Is that true?
And when you consider 4/5 of the world lives in poverty, if they ever become economically developed, we would have a much worse energy, food, waste disposal problem on our hands.
I guess it sucks to be human.
John Johnson 8:22AM (6/04/2008)
I saw this story posted and disappear yesterday, where'd it go? :p
Reply
latterlon 9:03AM (6/04/2008)
1. Drill here, and drill now. We have our own oil. We can be oil independent.
2. Nuclear power.
Biofuels are a joke, and so is all the current legislation being tossed around as a solution to the problem we have created by not using our own resources already.
Reply
torpeau 10:00AM (6/04/2008)
Whether the oil comes from Texas or Nigeria, Saudi Arabia or Alaska, the cost of oil is the same for the same quality. Maybe transportation is cheaper and it helps our balance of payments, but the price at the pump will be pretty much the same.
Frank 8:51AM (6/04/2008)
Robert, this guy is not a member of the Bush Administration. He works for the DOE. When a president takes office, he doesn't fire all 3 million federal employees and hire his good friends and buddies to take there place. Most likely this guy is a democrat because expanded federal institutions and payrolls are ususually due to democrat policies - the DOE itself was created by Jimmy Carter, for example.
That being said I agree with you that we need Nuclear as one option for our energy policy. But it should be part of a multipronged policy to extract energy whenever and where ever we find it. That include oil on our own land, clean coal from Utah (time to deep six that terrible exec order by Clinton to not get our own low-sulphur coal, now we have to import it), soloar, wind, offshore drilling, bio fuels, and one formula gas and diesal for the whole country instead of the patchwork set we have now.
In the Cold War we had a 3 pronged nuclear deterrant - bombers, land based missiles, and submarine launched missiles. This made it imppossible for the Soviets to launch a pre-emptive strike to wipe out our ability to retaliate because they couldn't knock out all three points of the triad. This is the kind of thinking we need for our energy policy. We can't do away with oil but we can't make it the majority source of our energy any more either.
Reply
notYou 9:22AM (6/04/2008)
"Feed Stocks 4.7%"
Who knew?
Reply
bill 9:42AM (6/04/2008)
I wonder if the Energy Independence Security Act will be as successful as the Budget Control Act of the mid 1970's. You know that one - it gave us baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting you say? Yes, the one that allows a baseline budget increase of 10% each year for government agencies, and when it is decided to increase the given agency's budget for the next year by only 5%, it allows our lying S.O.B. politicians to announce they have made a 5% budget cut for the agency in question. Are we having fun or what?
Reply
K. Ryan Hasse 9:52AM (6/04/2008)
The "Energy Crisis" that gives a microphone to misguided and overbearing government officials like this one has been caused by our very own misguided and overbearing congress.
Let me repeat: Our government caused the very crisis it now purports to solve.
Left alone, energy producers of all types would work diligently sell limitless energy to the power-hungry consumer. It is our government's policies, enacted mainly for environmental reasons, that prevents power of all types from being brought to the market cheaply, if brought at all.
One of the first thing Ronald Reagan did when elected (following the Liberal wet-dream that was the failed Carter administration) was to deregulate multiple industries, including telephone services. What was the result? Cheaper phone service, more phone service, different kinds of phone service (cellular), and more access to more people.
To quell the environmentalists who will inevitably preach doom, gloom, fire, and brimstone, (like they did when Ronaldus Maximus deregulated) I say this. If an energy producer violates the rights of an individual by damaging their property (air, land, water), or usurps their liberty, or threatens their life, then of course our government has the authority and obligation to step in and govern. Protecting liberty is our government's soul purpose.
So what ought to be our government's energy policy? Deregulate. Get out of the way of producers of energy.
Affect? Inside of one year, the costs of energy of all types would go down (calming Wall Street speculators). Inside of 5 years, we'd be "swimming-in-oil" as the article states. Inside of ten years, we could tell OPEC to politely go ^#&@ a camel.
Our government (particularly Liberal Dems and RINOS) have created a re-election racket whereby they toss little kittens into trees, and then knock on our doors to tell us how horrible it is for these poor little kittens while taking our money.
Read Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Locke.
Reply