Braineack

iTrader: (62)

this^2

I frame the question a little differently: im insignificant.

njn63

iTrader: (4)

All the hotels in China/Taiwan were like this as well.

One of the most fascinating things of traveling for me is to see how other nations adapt to energy costs (generally higher than our own, especially compared to income). I saw more solar water heaters and even solar panels in China than I've seen my whole life in the US. Just simple **** but when a lot of people do it the impact is amazing.
I would love to see that projection, especially with how we're going to reduce oil consumption to levels we can produce.
The only argument is the savings in expenditures but chances are those are miniscule at this time. The only way we'll see real changes in consumption in these areas will be through increased cost but I'm sure that idea won't go over well in here.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Understand also that the costs in China may or may not be more heavily subsidized, especially in solar.

PM me your email address and I'll send you a couple hundred pages worth of research reports and white papers.

Also, note I am talking about energy independence in terms of domestically produced energy. Again, oil imports peaked in the USA prior to the recent global financial crisis/Great Recession/etc (circa 2005 or 2006).

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I don't advocate coal-fired smoke stacks on every corner but ANWR, Keystone, offshore and opening Federal lands to oil and natural gas and we'd be paying $1.25 per gallon for gas. Making sure that domestic production stayed domestic (it's our oil, after all) would be nice too.

And just think of the high-paying jobs and the reduction in trade deficit this would cause.

By simply signaling to the world that we were serious about energy independence would drop the price of gas by .50 in one week.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

This only works if we can produce >= 100% of our domestic demand. If we have to import *any* amount to meet our own demand, then we're back in a global market. Also consider that at the oil price point which produces $1.25/gal gasoline, domestic oil demand is going to skyrocket relative to what it is right now - we wouldn't have to produce 100% of our current domestic use to see $1.25 at the pump; we'd probably have to produce closer to 180-200% of our current domestic use.

In the end, making sure "our oil" stays "our oil" is somewhat of a pipe dream. If you owned 100 acres of land and you struck oil on your land and you had the option of either paying $1.25/gallon to have your oil refined into gasoline that only you were allowed to use, or selling that oil for $2.75/gal profit to every single person in your hometown while also being forced to pay $4.00/gallon yourself which would you do?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

We can, easily. Especially if you consider Canada as just a bunch of extra states. Cold ones. I would HOPE that demand would skyrocket, as that would mean that our economy was heating up. Extra demand would bring extra jobs. I like to see fellow Americans working. Heck, maybe those extra tax dollars could reduce the debt and deficit.

Edit--Our Oil. How about this--private land, private oil. Federal land, Ahmurrican oil. Otherwise, check page 147, addendum 2a for my further notes on my energy policy.

And while we're at it, incentivize solar, new nuclear, natural gas and clean coal in order to balance our power consumption. I don't know about where you live, but my electric rates go up 6-8-10% every year. That ain't right.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

+1 vote for putting up a Huge nuclear power plant in So-Cal.

While our economy would indeed heat up pretty significantly with $1.25 energy, it would also heat up significantly with $4.00 exports, though I think you may be some confusion in your analysis of fuel demand / supply / economy / price points. The economy heats up because the less expensive oil means that EVERYTHING becomes less expensive to produce, meaning marginal costs fall dramatically. Anything that is ever put on a truck, airplane, train before it gets to you, or anything which is made out of oil or packaged in things made out of oil becomes less expensive. Less expensive consumables means the cost of living goes down. If the cost of living goes down, then we can buy more luxuries....

Its a spiraling process, it's just a matter of if the spiral is going up or down at any point in time.

Realistically, you don't want demand for oil to skyrocket, because if that demand for oil skyrockets, then your price point shoots right back up through the roof. You want low demand, high supply, and low prices.

Unfortunately, canada isn't just a bunch of extra states, and anything short of a political takeover means that canada is going to capitalize by selling to the highest bidder - which at $1.25/gallon of gas, ain't us.

Extra demand for oil would bring extra jobs where? To the oil refineries? It's the extra jobs which increases demand for the oil.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Nope, I get it. I just assume that as demand skyrockets, those who want to make a profit will bring more energy online.

As for nukes, I've got a nuclear power plant less than 10 miles away. San Onofre (Trestles, Old Man's, etc.) is considered some of the best surfing on the West Coast. Extra added bonus--the reactor domes look like two huge *****. Unfortunately the reactor's offline for repairs. Most reactors nowadays use older technology that frankly isn't as safe as a new design, but a retrofit would brings 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars in regulatory compliance. Let's keep it safe, but let's not go all "Ralph Nader" on the situation.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

We've already got two plants, and we're in serious danger of losing one of them.

San Onofre (which does, in fact, resemble two gigantic **** rising up out of the beach) is located just up the road from me. It houses two reactors which have been off-line all year. Long story short: it's an older facility which received a retrofit a couple of years ago. As it turns out, the Japanese are bad at math, because the steam generators (large boilers which couple heat from the reactor loop to the turbine loop) which Mitsubishi sold us were incorrectly designed, and they started leaking in January due to corrosion and mechanical wear from vibration.

The anti-nuke crowd, of course, have seized on this as an argument for mothballing the plant rather than repairing it. Meanwhile, our fossil-fuel plants are running full-tilt-boogie and they've even resurrected two old generators at the Huntington Beach plant which had been de-commissioned years ago to try to maintain grid stability throughout the summer.

I've replaced all of the batteries in my UPSes. Frankly, I'm amazed that we haven't had any blackouts yet, given the record heat last week.

I'd also love nothing more than to see San Onofre repaired and put back on-line, and several new plants built. I would fully support may tax dollars being used to underwrite this construction. Between the enormous heat-sink provided by the Pacific ocean (crucial for nuke plant operation) and our tremendous surplus of sunshine, we have it entirely within our power to be the first state in the entire world whose electrical generation is completely fossil-fuel-free.

Stay classy, San Diego.