By Scott Tinker, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Dr. Scott W. Tinker is the acting associate dean of research at the Jackson School of Geosciences at UT Austin. He is the state geologist of Texas and recently co-produced the global energy documentary ‘Switch.’ He also serves on the Technical Advisory Council for BP.
Several years ago, I briefed a U.S. Senate hearing on the possibility of energy independence. “Probably not in our lifetimes,” I said boldly. “Energy security is a better goal.” That probably wasn’t what the senators wanted to hear, and as it turns out, in terms of energy independence, I may well have been wrong.
The concept of independence is deeply embedded in the American psyche. Our nation began with a declaration of it. But what does independence mean in the context of energy? Most would agree that energy independence is achieved when a nation produces more energy than it consumes – countries such as Brazil. So, how does the United States stack up?
Today, oil represents just over one-third of total U.S. energy consumption, and we import about half of that oil. One way to become independent would be to replace imported oil with a substitute. Easy to say, hard to do: hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, and planes run almost exclusively on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that come from oil. So why are we still dependent on oil? Because fuels made from it have physical properties – tremendous energy density, easy to transport globally and no solid residue or ash, making them nearly perfect transportation fuels. Just fill up in three minutes and drive some more! And all those fill-ups add up to about 10 million barrels of imported oil every day. Substituting something else will take time.
Biofuels and electric vehicles are evolving as alternatives to oil in the transportation sector, but we have a long way to go before they make a substantial dent. And, at present, electricity to charge all those new batteries comes mainly from coal, nuclear and natural gas, with wind and solar representing small (though growing) supplements in the electrical generation sector.
Another path towards energy independence is decreased energy consumption. Consumption has gone down in part because the economy has been sluggish. But a more pleasant method than recession is increasing efficiency. Americans could reduce by one-sixth the energy we consume today (equivalent to the amount of energy that we import) simply by paying attention. Turn off the lights when you leave a room. Don’t drive to the store for a bottle of water and again an hour later for a burger. Nudge the thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter. Insulate buildings, use more efficient lights, drive cars with improved mileage, or ride the bus from time to time.
But cultural changes take time. Meanwhile, there are two things we can do now to decrease imported oil: replace some gasoline and diesel with compressed or liquefied natural gas and produce more oil domestically. Technological advances, particularly horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, have allowed us to take advantage of natural gas, and more recently, oil, trapped in shales. To be sure, hydrocarbons from shale are typically more expensive to produce, but the resources involved are enormous: four or more times larger than conventional oil and gas resources.
And there is an important environmental benefit. The vast, and now inexpensive, supply of U.S. natural gas resulting from hydraulic fracturing is that s substituting for coal-fueled power production in this country. That shift from coal to natural gas, combined with the economic slowdown, has allowed us to reduce CO2 emissions by some 10 percent over the past two years, more than in countries with carbon taxes or cap-and-trade policies.
Yet you have probably seen claims that fracking causes water to ignite in kitchen sinks. Turns out, there is natural gas in varying concentrations in most ground water. In other words, many if not most of those sinks could be ignited before fracking came to town. That being said, there are local environmental issues associated with oil and gas operations, and there must be continued cooperation between natural gas producers and regulators to reduce these risks and improve what has actually been a remarkably good safety and environmental record.
It’s important to remember that no energy choice is perfect. All involve tradeoffs. Without hydraulic fracturing, for example, we would use more coal for electricity generation, producing more CO2, or we would use more nuclear power, with its attendant concerns. We would also likely import more oil for transportation.
So what’s my forecast now? Energy security is still an important goal, but that is a topic for a different column. More importantly, energy independence is actually possible, but getting there will require some of each of these: replacing some consumption with alternatives, cutting some demand with efficiency, and increasing some domestic supply with shale oil and gas. These changes will take time and effort from industry, consumers and government. But the potential impact will be remarkable.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Very interesting analysis – and "we" are able to be a part of "this time" to participate! That's good for "us"!
-The Old Goat-
I don't think people are intelligent enough to understand PURPA, FERC or Net Metering or Retail Wheeling. When it comes to energy most are dolts. They have no clue what a Kwh really is.
Do we dolt's actually know who built the national grid system. We tax payors did. And we pay it's maintenance and up keep to this day. By caongressional authority.
well researchd article
Here's an observation: the average MPG of vehicles in the US light duty fleet (i.e. trucks you and I drive today) is about 18MPG. Yes you read that right. Eighteen miles per gallon.
There are cars available today that get forty miles per gallon or better, though to eliminate five million barrels per day of imported oil all we'd need is to replace that fleet with vehicles that get 36 miles per gallon. Hardly a great sacrifice. But yet, we the people don't want to do it and thus we must occupy foreign countries instead in order to make sure the oil is not stolen by renegade regimes.
Why?
This is because we in North America believe we "need" a big truck because of bull like "safety" and "power" and "towing" and to "carry tools" to name a couple of red herrings. People generally didn't drive enormouse vehicles in the 80s or early 90s. It was only since the late 90s that it became in vogue to drive SUVs or enormous pickups. We could shift back to regular sized cars or smaller pickups easily.
"Safety" clearly is bull because in other countries with high numbers of vehicles every second vehicle is not an F150 or a Dodge SUV and yet similar numbers or lesser numbers of people die or are injured in traffic accidents.
"Power" is also bull because let's face it: most of the time we need to get on to the highway traffic is jammed anyway and if traffic is not jammed then you don't need the power. So maybe you need the power to haul gravel or a 24ft trailer. What? Once a year? Twice a year? Be serious people.
You "need" a truck to carry tools? Really? Honestly? In other countries tradesmen use station wagons or vans and they seem to get by just fine.
In other words we import nearly half of our oil because of lifestyle choices not because we *need to* and if we address that then any other decisions we need to make will be a lot easier.
But if we justify still every second person driving a large truck or SUV then people be aware you are by default choosing to occupy foreign lands.
BDX, I totally agree with your observations about where we need to be heading in terms of mpg in the vehicles that we drive. However, the reason I drive a truck is because it is one of the few vehicles I can actually sit in comfortably. I am 6'6" tall, and virtually all of the high mileage vehicles are too small. We need even more innovative solutions to high mileage vehicles that allow for larger vehicles so that people like myself and those that actually use trucks for work purposes aren't discriminated against.
BDX, You're right. I've been driving 'compact' pick-ups for 29 years, and have found them to be perfectly functional. I put 'compact' in quotation marks, because when I traded in my '94 Nissan pick-up for a 2010 model, the increase in size was pretty shocking. But I was pleasantly surprised at the great mileage and power was not a problem. Both have 4-cylinder engines, but clearly 4-bangers have dramatically improved over the years. Most personal pick-ups seem to be empty or lightly-loaded most of the time, and could easily be replaced by compact 4-cylinder models.
When? How? As they say, the devil is in the details.
An addendum to BDX's comment:
In Europe, average price of gas per gallon is around $9-$10. That's a marked increase from what we pay in American, which is around $4. If prices were to increase and reach that rate, then we would ultimately sacrifice and make our cars more efficient. This is what the Europeans did.
Average mpg in Europe is around 60! That's unheard of today in America, but it's the lifestyle we choose to live.
Fuel efficiency would drastically reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
I am the same guy. I am a useless piece of camel dung who works at the moron stage. I post anti-American, anti GB, anti-Semite, anti-India, anti-modern anything because I am a good Moslem from Pakistan. I am so ashamed of myself and I post the most stupid comments because I am an imbecile. Mohammed the pedophile has taught me well. When people get angry with me, I claim they are the stupid ones. If I am not careful, my brain will explode because it is so full of hate and puss.
"In other words, many if not most of those sinks could be ignited before fracking came to town."
I'm not sure if I buy that. If the concrete seal around the drilled hole breaks, groundwater can be contaminated. I think it is reasonable to believe in many of these instances, that is what occurred. Fracking correctly does not damage aquifers, but errors are costly, and the local communities, not the natural gas company, incur the risk.
Deep Blue, Properly done fracking is still more of an art than a science for the simple reason that much of the fractured rock formations are at depths where the structural result of the opperation on surrounding sub-surface strata is based on best-guess estimates. We can't see that far into the ground. It is a fact that minor earthquakes have centered around some fracking operations. Were they due to the fracking destabilizing an unanticipated void (cavern)? Could this eventually result in the collapsed void eventually resulting in surface subsidance? Are some of the released gases – instead of being removed via the fracking equipment/process – finding avenuses to the surface or into aquifers via unknown porous rock formations or existing fractures that the operations have enhanced? The truth seems to be that this is all an 'unknowable' currently. Several States have already passed legislation that prohibits fracking because they want more precise science and raock-hard guarantees that the ground water they depend on is not going to be adversley impacted. These communities are doing the right thing.
Great article... I especially like the idea that we all can and should make a difference with our consumption and efficiency...
Here's Dr. Scott Tinker in a video talking about general Energy Issues: http://www.switchenergyproject.com/topics/energyissues
Not likely with another four years of Obama. If he promises everyone a $20,000 subsidy for purchasing an American-made hybrid. . . . That's doubtful unless he really gets his way in the next Congress.
And since no one has money to spend, perhaps this period of flux would be well spent exploiting fossil fuels and technologies to limit there harmful emmisions.
Just whose energy independence are we talking about? Big oil, Big Solar, Big wind, Or individuals that own and operate a small PV system but isn't allowed access to the grid at retail rates. Wounder which monopoly wins?
If you purchase a solar system and produce an excess of Kwhs you have to give it to your local utility at avoided cost which is below wholesale. You cannot recieve retail for your production under current law. Is there a question by you little people?
You little people will never get retail rates for your Kwh production, even though you all built the national electrical grid by your tax dollars. And you still maintain it in tax dollars through authorities. I doubt any of you dolts know what a congressional authority is? Show me your sign We should discuss PURPA or FERC rules.
Why can't we wheel our excess Kwh's?
If you cook the best Donut but then can only sell it to the monopoly grocery store in your area at less than cost, how long will you be in business? It's the same with Kwh's. Simple!!!
Why don't people understand PURPA or FERC or even thier local Rules of "Net Metering". "Retail Weeling"....
Energy independence is not possible until you give the home owned producer autonomy on our national grid. Give us retail rates for our production.
If I can proiduce a Kwh at .02cts why cant I sell it at californian rates at 12cts to 21cts per Kwh? Why am I not allowed to undercut the current monopoly?
Taxes paid for the National Grid, Yet we can't access it?
Maybe some Liberal could explain it to me?
I want an Alternative Energy push more so than any oil reforms. Imagine a town built to demand of easy transit. Electric cars, a ZipCar like competative market, and more. We can do it... we just have to try.
I am struck by the number of comments by people that speak as though they really understand frac-ing (there is no K in fracture, so there is no K in frac-ing). The misinformation has become dogma. Statements like "we cannot see down that far" are patently absurd, and it is clear that people make no effort to do the minimum of research on their own. They simply take some "expert" opinion from some group they agree with and run with it. Research is so easy these days and people refuse to educate themselves. Try google-ing "micro seismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing" and read some of the 83 thousand entries on the subject to see that not only can we see down there but we can determine the exact extent of the fracture as it forms. Please people, don't be used as pawns by special interests.