Watch the latest "Fareed Zakaria GPS" special, ‘Global Lessons: The Road Map for Powering America,’ this Sunday at 8 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
By Frank Verrastro, Special to CNN
Editor's note: Frank Verrastro is director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and international Studies. The views expressed are his own and were in part included in testimony to the U.S. Senate.
As the political rhetoric surrounding U.S. energy “independence” heats up, it is worth pointing out a few things to help provide much needed context. After all, there are plenty of things at play here in the coming months and years – resource access and regulatory policy, fuels choices, infrastructure build out, industrial policy, imports and exports, tax and investment decisions, the role of nuclear, subsidies for alternatives, efficiency priorities, SPR policy, environmental concerns and the use of energy as a geopolitical or foreign policy tool. Whew!
For starters, the United States is already over 80 percent (up from 70 percent a decade ago) self sufficient when it comes to energy production and use. We are routinely described as the Saudi Arabia of coal, and have the largest nuclear fleet in the world. We are the world’s largest natural gas producer and the 3rd largest oil producer. Renewables account for roughly 10 percent of our energy mix and we have in place a variety of efficiency standards, mandates and incentive programs. That said, our transportation fleet is more than 94 percent dependent on liquid fuels, mostly petroleum based, and as oil is a globally traded commodity, changes in worldwide supply and demand consequently impact U.S. consumer prices.
In an attempt to limit that impact, we have routinely looked to conservation, fuel switching and CAFÉ standards to alter the demand curve; and to incentives, access, technology improvements, alternative fuels and higher prices to stimulate additional supplies. In times of crises, we have utilized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to infuse the system with additional incremental oil supply. At the time of writing, largely as a result of the unconventional (shale gas and tight oil) revolution, U.S oil production is at its highest level in decades. Natural gas has eclipsed the previous output record set back in 1973. Oil imports comprise less than 46 percent (down from 60 percent) of total consumption, and refined product exports are averaging almost 3 million barrels per day, giving our refining sector an enormous “value add.” Projections indicate that we will be a net exporter of natural gas (and possibly oil) in the not too distant future.
Last year, fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) accounted for roughly 80 percent of global energy consumption. Renewables, including nuclear, made up the rest. And while the growth in solar and wind has been enormous, the base remains small and intermittency and infrastructure challenges remain large. Yet, in the wake of Macondo, Fukushima and the shale gas and tight oil revolutions, the energy landscape is rapidly changing. Higher prices and technology applications at scale are producing a revolution of their own – namely in the ability to access huge unconventional oil and gas resources both here and abroad.
And this phenomenon is creating a new American energy reality, allowing the nation to increasingly become more energy self-sufficient, achieve a significant reduction in our imports/balance of payments, and concurrently create an engine for economic growth, a platform for technology and innovation, job creation, new tax and royalty revenues, and the revitalization of domestic industries.
But realizing this vision requires that policymakers successfully tackle a number of complex issues. Here are what I believe are the most important:
Resource access & development policy: The U.S. is resource-rich when it comes to energy forms, so the issue here is how much do we make available for development, at what price, over what period and under what type of regulatory regime? Outside of the central and western Gulf of Mexico, much of America’s offshore oil and gas resources are presently off limits, although there are plans being worked on to develop offshore wind energy systems. Federal lands require (by statute) a number of alternative use and conservation/preservation considerations and we are now only beginning to consider scalable Arctic development, including lands in Alaska. Environmental policy to preserve and protect lands, species, water, air and safety requirement for developers are also critical considerations. Prudently weighing trade offs are key challenges for policymakers.
Onshore, in the lower 48 states, issues surrounding well integrity, hydraulic fracturing, water use, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste water, community impacts, emissions and other environmental and safety concerns are currently the focus of both state and federal regulators and will need to be resolved collaboratively with producer/operators and other stakeholders to allow the large scale development of our enormous unconventional resources.
Infrastructure build out: This is a key consideration for realizing the benefits of the current boom in unconventional oil and gas development. Crude oil needs to get to refiners and natural gas to utilities, industrial customers, processors and other end users. That requires pipeline interconnects and new midstream infrastructure and involves permits, environmental assessments and managing “above ground” impacts of local communities through which pipes and railways travel. As investments here are bound to be enormous, regulatory certainty and confidence in a timely and predictable permitting process (while allowing for public input) are critical as lead times are significant and failure to construct key infrastructure leads to bottlenecks and stranded resources.
Fuel choices and the use of mandates and incentives: Power generation, industrial uses, feedstocks, transport and heating/cooling account for the bulk of domestic energy usage. With ample new supplies of fossil fuels on the horizon, policymakers will be confronted with the choice of how and whether to employ federal tools (e.g., subsidies, mandates, incentives, etc.) to stimulate fuel diversification choices and support nascent industries, an especially tricky proposition in an era of reduced federal budgets, but one which needs to be discussed in the context of near and longer term diversification and cleaner future fuels and transport options. The role of nuclear energy going forward is an obvious issue here as the high cost of entry and competition from low cost gas in a low demand growth future makes such new investments infeasible strictly on economic grounds. The future of coal, ethanol (the “blend wall” discussion is coming) and renewables also require some hard choices. And the issue of incentives and subsidies requires an examination of current tax rates and other preferences and special provisions.
Export policy for oil and gas: Under current law, refined petroleum products are widely permitted. LNG exports require regulatory approval particularly as they relate to non-FTA countries, and crude oil exports are permitted under certain conditions. With the projected influx of both lighter domestic crudes and Canadian oil sands, Gulf coast refiners will be pressed to match incoming crude quality with existing processing equipment (see infrastructure discussion above) and product demand needs. Capabilities of Jones Act vessels to efficiently move waterborne volumes between U.S. markets and the ability to export more costly or unneeded crudes are issues worthy of a robust policy debate.
The management, composition and use of the SPR: As we approach an era of oil self-sufficiency or limited import exposure, reexamining the utility, size, composition and use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (along with a series of other statutes and policies conceived in time of markedly different circumstances) is also warranted. At nearly 700 million barrels, the value of the current reserve approaches some $70 billion. As import volumes continue to decline, the size of the reserve could be reduced without sacrificing deliverability in times of short duration disruptions.
Reconciling the perpetuation of fossil fuels with climate needs: While climate change seems to have disappeared from the current public debate, the consequences of perpetuating large scale fossil fuel use into the next century require a reevaluation of strategies designed to minimize the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions or implement adaptation policies in the not too distant future. So far, we seem to be, except on the margins, in an “either-or“ debate. But achieving a truly sustainable and secure energy future while preserving quality of life standards requires that we confront this issue head on in a clear-eyed way.
The ability to access these enormous unconventional resources has produced significant economic and security benefits, but also exposed some considerable risks and challenges. Ingenuity and technology, well timed investment and research can help mitigate some of these adverse impacts. However, responsible development, prudent policy and effective regulation can together provide the framework for allowing this development to move forward in a way that affords us the breathing space to develop and dispatch the next generation of cleaner burning/lower carbon fuels.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
I'll use my vote on hybernating or photosynthesis since most of the world population is either sleeping or keeping up a vegetative state on the energy issue currently.
Has anyone heard of CHP "Combined Heat and Power"? Our system Net Meters Kwh's while heating in the winter and stores the excess Kwhs on the grid for summer use at retail rates. Our energy bill has been reduced by at least 50%. Check out EPA/CHP and DOE/CHP. It's a natural gas prime mover but still qualifies for "Green" tax incentives.
Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty, dangerous, expensive coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel cars,pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will help keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. It lowers CO2 emissions. Over 2,000 natural gas story links on my blog. An annotated bibliography. The big picture of natural gas. Ron Wagner
They have cars and trucks that run on natural gas,on the road,since the 60's and 70's.We see where they went with those,nowhere.Oil companies have a reputation of stifling high mileage vehicles for a long long time now because they hurt their bottom line.
You do realize oil companies produce natural gas also. So, I don't think they really care whether you use natural gas or not.
You are right, but there are hundreds of drillers that can supply natural gas. We must fight for cheaper fuel.
It is entirely possible to have a small hydrogen filling station at either/or your home and/or work powered by either a solar panel and/or small wind turbine that could make enough gas pressurized hydrogen by eleyrolysis to get millions upon millions back and forth to work everyday without using a drop of gasoline. Pressurizing it to liquid form is a different matter; costly, and more complicated, but not really necessary for most just to get back and forth to work or drive short distances daily. Can you imagine ?!? Conserve gasoline, help the environment, and save hugely not being gouged by big oil and big gov't gas taxes ! On second thought, for that matter chances are it'll never be allowed. It's not a technological or safety issue, it's a political impossibility.
Hydrogen is not viable for a variety of reasons including fuel cost, energy required to generate fuel and cost/longevity of hydrogen fuel cells. Do better research, hydrogen is a non-starter.
Yep, you're probably right. I knew Iceland wasn't a real place !
At $1,000,000 per hydrogen vehicle, you can be certain Icelanders won't be adopting hydrogen vehicles any time soon. Please use google research to filled the empty part of the peanut shell that doesn't contain your brain. Rather than using electricity to make hydrogen to burn in a fuel cell, you can use the electricity to charge a battery to run a car. Google efficiency re the same.
the general public is unaware of these realities and the TEa Party they know from nothing-only gridlock-hjl
This article misstates the problem. Only an uneducated teabagger would state we are 80% energy independent (this number includes our electricity production, which is misleading and just plain ignorant). Oil imports are crippling our country by exporting $. Eliminating oil imports should be our entire focus. Period. Stating we are 80% energy independent hides the problem and is purposely misleading (or exhibits the author's wholesale ignorance of energy issues)
We need transportation fuels that replace oil imports. There are two viable options NOW (nat gas vehicles and nat gas to ethanol) and ONE future option - electric vehicles. EV's require advances in batteries; nat gas vehicles require fueling stations and expensive pressurized tanks in the vehicles.
Nat gas to Ethanol can be used in flex fuel e85 vehicles now, using existing fuel stations. Ethanol is only viable using Celanese TCX technology which has been commercialized and is comparable to $60 bbl oil. All other ethanol technologies remain in the science experiment state.
We have enough nat gas in this country to RAPIDLY reduce our oil imports by converting nat gas to ethanol for transport fuels. The consequence of this adoption would be increased tax revenues, saving state and federal budget deficits; produce huge economic stimulus ($ we have been exporting would circulate in the U.S. economy rather than stimulating the mid east)
Next time CNN does an energy story, please get someone who knows energy...
I agree with you on everything, but your take on "tea baggers" is way off base.
Matter of fact, most "tea baggers" would agree with you.
Open your eyes. Obviously you're not stupid.
We can convert 6 units of natural gas into 1 barrel of 138 octane, EPA approved, and Patented Envirolene® for use in ALL engines. With a FFV , you can run our product neat. All without a dime of taxpayer dollars.
So just exactly how big is a "unit" of natural gas?
Bio-diesel from algae.
Drill here. Drill NOW.
oh, did i forget to mention that millions of gallons of poisonous waste water from fracking is hauled off to remote sites then injected into the deep underground? did i tell you that this process has been shown to create earthquakes by destabilizing underground faults? let's check with an honest usgs expert. will you find out if injection sites exist even in states where there are no shale beds or hydraulic fracturing? thanks.
I'm not a geologist and I can't validate your claim but I am sure your correct. I can tell you that the toxins in the water used to do the "fracking" are indeed dangerous and are definitely getting in the water supply. I live in PA and there is a lot of fracking going on in what used to be some of the most pristine areas left in this state, mostly in the north. I live in the southern part of the state and they are finding the same chemicals used in fracking in the rivers in my area. Rest assured though, the industry officials have said they are not dangerous at the levels present...... seems we've hear that line to many times in the past. I work in the storm water management industry so I am well informed in this area.
Yea yea I know.....you're....not your. Lets stay focused on the issue.
Right on! How can Fareed Zakaria talk about "dirty" coal as opposed to "no emissions" from natural gas when the fracking fluid that is injected underground comes back up as "produced water", and is stored either in condensation taniks or (better yet) open pits, and the same 295+ toxins that went underground are now airborne as they evaporate! What do you call the neurotoxins and other toxins if not "emission"! For a seemingly intelligent man, he makes no real sense. Oh, perhaps he is on ANGA's payroll???
We've been trying and trying to get this off the ground. We don't want government money nor do we want big oil money. We want the communities to own this.. check it out at http://www.biorootenergy.com
One thing for sure is we are being held hostage by unscrupulous oil companies.There is no valid reason for gas to cost us $4.00 a gallon,not with all the alternative energy sources available,not with cars getting double and triple the fuel mileage we got in the 60"s and 70"s,not with all the new oil discoveries all over the world and new ways to retrieve this oil.There is no excuse why we haven't built new refineries since 1975except for unchecked greed by oil barons.
The reason that no refineries have been built in this country in the past 30 years is regulations. The last refinery that was built required ten years and 15 million dollars just for the permits to build it. All would cost much more today.
15 million is nothing to companies that make billions of dollars. New refineries are not made because they are not profitable (but this has nothing to do with regulations).
What we really need to know is why can Chavez sell gasoline for ten cents a gallon, supply his friends with gasoline for free and still have enough money to buy all the votes he needs to stay in power.
America needs to nationalize the oil industry, until we get control of our energy costs we will never rise from this recession.
Because Chavez has a line in his budget for the cost of gasoline to sell below cost and market.
That doesn't explain why we are paying $4 dollars a gallon to cover the wall street traders
Transportation planners learned a long time ago you can't build enough roads and mass transit to keep up with public demand which seems to actually expand with every new dollar of investment in those infrastructures. Instead of figuring out different ways to 'feed the energy demand beast' in this country which will simply result in transfers of wealth all coming from the same consumers' pockets, I would be interested in a serious discussion as to 'how we use energy in this country' so we can create greater economic productivity with more efficiently allocated btu's across the spectrum of users.
Predator-Prey model. That's also why subsidizing corn ethanol is such a foolish idea. The only 'cure' is to have the actual consumers of resources shoulder the full cost of the resources, along with a free market, without subsidies. Every American should be united in their support for directives like gas taxes and toll roads, and against such obfuscating wealth redirections like income tax and property tax (to the degree that they are in use today) and subsidies for specific or favored green "technologies" like corn based ethanol.
Obama doesn't want to talk about it.
He just wants to squander our tax dollars on foolish notions of green energy that is not market ready, and not truly viable, at this point in time.
The are several renewable technologies that are "market ready" & "truly viable". In order to build a coal plant or nuclear plant the government will have to subsidize the projects (i.e. the loan guarantee for the Georgia nuclear plant). Without subsidizes wind in the Midwest has a lower levelized cost of energy (lcoe) than coal & nuclear. Solar PV's lcoe is close to nuclear in the Southwest. The best part of solar and wind is that it does not require fresh water. This is not about saving the world it is about making the right economic choices.
In this chase we cannot not let the market decide because there is no "market" for long term procurement of electricity. One of the key characteristics of a market is multiple buyers and multiple sellers. In most regions in the country there is only one wholesale buyer with a long term obligation to serve. This is a monopsony, not a market.
Despite all the propaganda and true believers, the devine right of politicians to distort economic decisionswill enevitably fail. We have been hearing for over 20 years now about how investment in "renewable technologies just neeeds to reach a "critical mass" to become economic. What it really is happening is a direct transfer of taxpayer money to the politically favored like Al Gore. You said: "There are several renewable technologies that are market ready" This is incorrect. Without exception, no renewable technology is cost competetive with petroleum or natural gas, even with the existing massive government subsidies. The main reason nuclear requires a subsidy, and will never become economic in the US is because of the onerous and apparently ineffective regulations and government oversight that more than double the cost of the technology.
The payback period on solar cells, even with all the government subsidies and tax breaks is almost twenty years and might as well be never.
Wind is only competetive if natural gas is in the $6 per million Btu range (currently around $3 per million Btu and likely to stay in that range for a decade or more) and has an extremely variable output requiring a fossil fired spinning reserve approaching 75% of the connected load – (not normally considered in the overall cost of wind power). Even coal is being backed down by cheap natural gas.
If you really want cheaper petroleum prices you will have to fight the monopoly dragon. The monopolies have the best politicians that money can buy on their side. What have you got?
Not only is Germany pushing it's solar panels, but they're expanding their hydrogen highways with many more filling stations. Given a hundred mile drive through a frigid Minnesota snow storm or a blazing Texas heat wave, I'll take the Bimmer H7 over a BetterPlace Batt-mobile hands down.
The cost of hydrogen is far greater per unit of energy than almost any other fuel because you must start with a fossil fuel to make it. Electrolysis is extremely inefficient (only about 40% of the electrical energy put into the process comes out as hydrogen) the rest is lost. There is a rare island example of producing hydrogen with excess wind energy but the point of that exercise is that the cost of getting petroleum to the island makes the subsidized hydrogen more feasible. In the rest of the world, hydrogen as a chemical fuel remains largely an expensive laboratory curiosity.
Techeider, I completely agree that anyone who would even suggest that hydrogen, or any other fuel for that matter, can and/or will readily replace petroleum any time soon needs a reality check. And yes, using electrolysis powered by fossil fuel or uranium generated electricity is ludicrous. Additionally, there is no question energy efficiency wise that propelling a car by batteries dwarfs that of one run by hydrogen, However, the amount of solar, wind, geothermal, and other natural harnessable energy we have actually taken advantage of in our collective history is likely less than what is being created/expended/wasted every second. So I am not overly concerned about taking an infinitesimal fraction of otherwise completely wasted energy and using it to make hydrogen. I will concede that the more ideal automobile should be a combined battery and hydrogen powered machine being charged directly and indirectly by non-fossil fuel produced electricity. Let's you get around on batteries in fair weather and on hydrogen when things get ugly. And let's not forget the myriad of other combustion powered tools and toys we use ranging from weed wackers to power boats. Anyone who thinks we will ever get rid of the combustion engine should take a reality check. By the way, everyone should really start to consider what's happening to our weather lately , from the heatwaves and drought, to sea surface temperature anomalies, to Greenland melting in 4 days, to snow storms in Africa and south American deserts, to Lake Huron/Michigan being down over 5 feet, and so on. The Army Corps of Engineers is emptying our damned lakes just to keep a few barges floating up and down the Missouri and grow a few tomatoes in California.
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and always will be!
Only as a nuclear fuel.
Why is the world kept in the dark in regards to enegry?Several advances in technology of energy sources are waiting to change the world .No more gas and oil ! The first cars head pump system with spinning method of stored energy was converted to use large amounts of gas,so people who had oil royalties could make money.Stored energy in a non accessable generator to cause cars to run off air pressure while on the ground and drive forward and backwards just as a normal car dose .A small modification to cars and no gas or oil needed.Removal of hydrogen and electrical energy from homes and the use of high mountain pressure converted into stored energy.
We need to go "Manhatten Project" on Energy in this country. We have over a hundred years worth of oil, three hundred in natural gas, over a hundred in coal....we need to utilize it all! Only reason we havent, is because of Lefitst Ideology. Sickening.
Many 10's of thousands use wood for home heat, as it is toasty.
The two deepest boreholes (7.1 & 7.4 miles deep) are as good as we can do?
The 550 to 570 degree temperature is the obstacle and it would seem that by overcoming that problem would lead to
Geo-Thermal power out the wazoo.
We can travel through space, build huge structures and pump oil, but can't overcome 570 degree obstacles?
What gives?
It's just a forever head game between the military and us. They use more oil products and want to use the oil sins to keep the game going. It's all their fault! I want to see all the oil contracts on the table. There's no reason for gas to fluctuate DAILY! Head games, sick of the head games.
80% self sufficient?! Really? How is it then that we are not getting money and living high like the people of Qatar do? If we ar so self sufficient what's the need for all these foreign oil contracts that keep affecting prices in America? I am so tired of hearing about global demand. I only care about US demand. So where's this self sufficiency this article is talking about, heh? B.S.! I want home grown bio diesel. I am demanding home grown bio diesel. Oh yeah, that's right, there's some idiotic and senseless ban on industrial hemp. Must be Dupont still strong arming our legislators. Hey what really happened to Rudolph Diesel? I don't really think it was an accident.
Um...because 80% self-sufficient means we are 20% dependent upon others, while Qatari's are 1000% self-sufficient. See, the difference is whether or not you have something called a surplus. If you don't have a surplus, that means you have a deficit. I could go on, but then I'd have to start charging you tuition.
LOW Carbon-Footprint Fuels ? ?
WHY No mention at all of ZERO Carbon-Footprint Fuels ! !
OH, you do not know of those ? ? . Well, try THINKING for a little change, my GoPer !
They are liquid fuels made from air and water using nuclear energy at sites isolated from significant population centers. . Got it ? ?
Oh, you do NOT know HOW to manufacture such fuiels ? ? . Well, GoPer LEARN HOW ! ! ! - Just for a little change, DO something POSITIVE instead of whining ! ! !
Based on federal estimates (generally conservative) there are several hunderd years of natural gas (at current usage rates) recoverable at current prices with existing technology. There is also about 300 years of oil (at current usage rates) recoverable at current prices with existing technologies.
The existing politics of scarcity (depravation by regulation) are driven by an ideological need to make the population dependent thus assuring continuity in power. This sad philosophy will either be overturned or endorsed by the upcoming election. If the politics of scarcity wins you can expect a life changing reduction of you standard of living in the next few years. Neither party is willing to address the real issue behind the election, possibly because neither want to change the existing political dynamics of federal power.
Race is not the issue. Wealth is not the issue. Taxes are not the real issue. Expansion of federal power through increasingly restrictive regulation is the real issue and the real reason for our declining standard of living.
Prescription : One ounce Seagrams PARANOIA flavored distillate with food every 4 to 6 hours or as required to mediate otherwise uncontrolled life-threatening hallucinations and illusions.
DANGER : Carefully and consistently avoid ANY co-consumption of Right-Wing radio broadcasts.
There IS hope for the remediation of your condition ! - As long as Seagrams holds up ! ! !
Tekelder, both you and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts have my vote.
How is nuclear a renewable?
they are not, strictly speaking. But use of breeder reactors could power the world (meet all energy requirements) for 1 billion years. They also produce little long term waste.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:10:21 +0530 wrote >
a:hover { color: red; } a { text-decoration: none; color: #0088cc; } a.primaryactionlink:link, a.primaryactionlink:visited { background-color: #2585B2; color: #fff; } a.primaryactionlink:hover, a.primaryactionlink:active { background-color: #11729E !important; color: #fff !important; }
/* @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { .post { min-width: 700px !important; } } */ WordPress.com
jasonmiks posted: "Watch the latest "Fareed Zakaria GPS" special, ‘Global Lessons: The Road Map for Powering America,’ this Sunday at 8 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
By Frank Verrastro, Special to CNN
Editor's note: Frank Verrastro is director of the Energy and Nat"
We not only need to find ways to produce more domestic energy; we need to find ways to conserve energy.
I believe more investments should be made in redesigning and rebuilding old neighborhoods.
What if more communities created self-sustainable walkable neighborhoods? You obtain 4 goals by people walking more. You reduce our demand for foreign oil since cars are not used as much. You reduce our health care costs by people walking more. You save on pollution, thus global warming, and you save on gas expenditures by parking the cars more.
I recently read researchers are working on developing new water filters by using nano technologies. Your smart phone is made possible using new nano technology breakthroughs. These new filters could produce clean water for farming and for drinking out of polluted water. They say certain crystals can only be formed in space. They say these crystals can lead to developing new drugs to fight certain diseases that cannot be done on earth. Can they develop a special filter in space to produce clean water out of seawater?
Perhaps a certain new filter could be made in space that could greatly reduce the pollutants made from coal power plants, as well. This would help with energy needs across the globe; without adding too much more carbons into the air, thus affect global warming. We could build new space factories making these new inventions. Imagine all the new jobs that could be created in things like Aerospace Engineering by flying materials to and from these new space factories.
We not only need to find ways to produce more domestic energy; we need to find ways to conserve energy.
We need new research in producing cleaner energy, as well.
'U.S oil production is at its highest level in decades.'.... completely false.... highest since 2002. An easy stat to look up. So what other BS is in the article
Talk is cheap. Talk has been done. We have been talking about thing like this for at least a decade. It is time to do.
Our energy infrastructure is falling down around our ears and yet here we are needing to "talk" more. Talking at this stage of the game equates to doing nothing. Just look at the condition of our electrical grid and how long it's been that way. We have the technology but not the will to do anything about it.
Look at how many people suffer through the winter with fuel oil or propane. Why are we not laying natural gas pipeline day and night? We have solar arrays that can supplement a homes energy consumption but many just can't afford it. Between solar farms, wind turbines and hydro electric we could do wonders.
But here we are in 2012 "talking" about what we need to do. Where will we be in 2022?
It is good to CNN covering the clean energy topic. To learn more about how it is actually playing out in daily life, along with other green technology topics, check out EarthTechling (http://www.earthtechling.com). We cover these topics from a consumer perspective.
Step back for a second. That 80% self-sufficient claim (whether right or wrong) takes into account everything: residential needs, Industrial AND transportation. For residential and industrial, we generate almost ALL of that ourselves thru coal, gas, nuclear, etc.. electric generation. For the transportation piece, we can't claim that – not even close. But that's what everyone seems to focus on. If the argument is to pickup that last 20% and be self-sufficient for transportation, then electric is the easiest way to go. We can generate the 'fuel' thru coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, wave, etc.. right now. However, an 'all the above' approach is needed. But without EFFICIENT mass delivery and MASS storage systems, it can only be as effective as long as you are close to a plug. If batteries can be made to hold more voltage, to drive longer distances and can be charged quickly then that last troublesome 20% is no longer an issue.
Love might be frail through contraception, it increases more robust with each passing year exhibit your hard work efficiently feasted.
frmarque http://www.frmarque.be/
I am NOT an energy expert, but I've begun trying to understand the various positions Mitt and Barack have been taking as they define their respective energy policies. I was doing some digging around on the EIA and I'm noticing more and more how people use subtle language to exaggerate or diminish reality. Case in point, if you notice above, Frank claims that "U.S. oil production is at its highest level in decades.” Normally, I would have walked away thinking “wow, that’s a lot of oil”, but I’m finding that even that seemingly innocuous comment is a misrepresentation. If you look on the EIA (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a), U.S. oil production is at highest level since 2003 (not even one decade). Am I missing something here? If I am, please call me out because I’m new to this energy thing. This may seem insignificant, but too often, folks with an opportunity to reach millions of readers are too careless in terms of how they represent the facts. There aren’t even any sources included above.
You know what? I'm going to give Frank the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's talking strictly about 2012 as compared to "decades" ago, when EIA data only starts at 2011 (since 2012 isn't over)...
Very Informative article. Enjoyed reading and
sacoche lacoste homme air max nike nz survetement nike tn requin foot locker victoria chaussure veste adidas rasta nike air max structure nike dunk soldes pepe jeans polo manche longue polo marlboro classic polo jeans http://www.tnrasta.com/ frmaruqe http://www.tnrasta.com/