Almost 50 Years Of Dealing With The Energy Crisis

[mark46]

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia

Saudi Arabia declared economic war against the West in October 1973 and they haven't stopped since.

In college, the energy crisis and energy future were topics that we discussed often. We understood the solutions. But first the real "problem": to get out from under the blackmail of the Saudis and their OPEC alliance.

I worked with the issue in my entire working life in the utility industry.

It is time to re-assess whether to finally declare independence from OPEC.

There are obviously two side: demand and supply

DEMAND EFFORTS
There has been incredible improvement in our efficiency in the use of energy. Houses and offices are much more insulated. Autos use much less fuel per gallon. And, so much more. This will continue, sometimes with government handouts (really not necessary, sometimes without. If there are handouts, it should by the utilities who will benefit from less usage.
==============
The primary focus has always been on the supply side. How can we generate enough electricity to meet the demand.

Sure, there is the use of the direct us of il by autos and factories, so we need enough production for that. And, use of natural gas for home heat can be efficent (as well as thermal, solar, wind and others).

But the primary issue is fuel for power plants. It is almost always more efficient to use electricity in homes and factories. Homes and factories are inefficient in their use of oil and gas.
=============
RENEWABLES
In the 70's, we knew that it would decades before solar and other renewals were cost effective. There was solar even in 70's. Well, the time has come. There are many sources of renewable energy capable of fueling power plants. The primary issue is transmission into the power grid. Also, the US is unlikely to find that renewables are the primary anser in the near future.

NUCLEAR
I remember "too cheap to meter" And it is so. The primary costs that have artificially made
nuclear expensive is totally the cost of regulation. Countries like Canada and France have relied on nuclear for many decades. The "trick" is to have standardized plant design and construction. We should NOT decommission ANY nuclear plants.

If we are to build nuclear, it likel would be relatively small plants (several on the same site, just as we do gas).

OIL
This use is almost nil in power plants. The use in autos will decline by huge amounts in the next two decades. Its primary use will be in industrial facilities, with ever reduced amounts of pollution produced.

GAS
This is the transition fuel at power plants for at least another 30 years. The US and Canada have plently of reserves.

COAL
The US government made a major mistake by not taking a major role in developing "clean coal", coal with lower emissions than gas. We have a 150-year supply. I'd much rather the US be forced to rely on US clean coal than on Middle East or Russian oil. Much of Europe is in a similar position. For example, "clean" coal would help Poland (and perhaps Ukraine) to be independent from Russian oil.
=============
BOTTOM LINE
The US is clearly energy independent (ever more so if we include Canada). We need to adjust our foreign policy in such a way to recognize the independence, and have a foreign policy that helps Europe gain that independence.

 

[FireDragon76]

Clean coal was tried but it never made economic or environmental sense, unfortunately. No practical, energy-efficient way of sequestering the carbon was found.

 

[mark46]

Clean coal was tried but it never made economic or environmental sense, unfortunately. No practical, energy-efficient way of sequestering the carbon was found.

I understand.

For 40 years, solar power didn't make economic sense.

I agree that carbon sequestration is the issue that need the work. How many billions is it worth to make our 150 years worth of coal valuable again? What about other countries with large coal reserves. BTW, this sequestration technology, if developed, might be useful for more than just coal plants.

Four countries would especially benefit from have less reliance on Russian and Middle Eastern energy: US, Australia, China and India.

 

[disciple Clint]

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia

Saudi Arabia declared economic war against the West in October 1973 and they haven't stopped since.

In college, the energy crisis and energy future were topics that we discussed often. We understood the solutions. But first the real "problem": to get out from under the blackmail of the Saudis and their OPEC alliance.

I worked with the issue in my entire working life in the utility industry.

It is time to re-assess whether to finally declare independence from OPEC.

There are obviously two side: demand and supply

DEMAND EFFORTS
There has been incredible improvement in our efficiency in the use of energy. Houses and offices are much more insulated. Autos use much less fuel per gallon. And, so much more. This will continue, sometimes with government handouts (really not necessary, sometimes without. If there are handouts, it should by the utilities who will benefit from less usage.
==============
The primary focus has always been on the supply side. How can we generate enough electricity to meet the demand.

Sure, there is the use of the direct us of il by autos and factories, so we need enough production for that. And, use of natural gas for home heat can be efficent (as well as thermal, solar, wind and others).

But the primary issue is fuel for power plants. It is almost always more efficient to use electricity in homes and factories. Homes and factories are inefficient in their use of oil and gas.
=============
RENEWABLES
In the 70's, we knew that it would decades before solar and other renewals were cost effective. There was solar even in 70's. Well, the time has come. There are many sources of renewable energy capable of fueling power plants. The primary issue is transmission into the power grid. Also, the US is unlikely to find that renewables are the primary anser in the near future.

NUCLEAR
I remember "too cheap to meter" And it is so. The primary costs that have artificially made
nuclear expensive is totally the cost of regulation. Countries like Canada and France have relied on nuclear for many decades. The "trick" is to have standardized plant design and construction. We should NOT decommission ANY nuclear plants.

If we are to build nuclear, it likel would be relatively small plants (several on the same site, just as we do gas).

OIL
This use is almost nil in power plants. The use in autos will decline by huge amounts in the next two decades. Its primary use will be in industrial facilities, with ever reduced amounts of pollution produced.

GAS
This is the transition fuel at power plants for at least another 30 years. The US and Canada have plently of reserves.

COAL
The US government made a major mistake by not taking a major role in developing "clean coal", coal with lower emissions than gas. We have a 150-year supply. I'd much rather the US be forced to rely on US clean coal than on Middle East or Russian oil. Much of Europe is in a similar position. For example, "clean" coal would help Poland (and perhaps Ukraine) to be independent from Russian oil.
=============
BOTTOM LINE
The US is clearly energy independent (ever more so if we include Canada). We need to adjust our foreign policy in such a way to recognize the independence, and have a foreign policy that helps Europe gain that independence.

What you have said about our need to be energy independent is absolutely true and it is a matter of national security, the only question is why the Biden administration is doing everything in its power to preclude using our resources.

 

[FireDragon76]

I understand.

For 40 years, solar power didn't make economic sense.

I agree that carbon sequestration is the issue that need the work. How many billions is it worth to make our 150 years worth of coal valuable again? What about other countries with large coal reserves. BTW, this sequestration technology, if developed, might be useful for more than just coal plants.

Four countries would especially benefit from have less reliance on Russian and Middle Eastern energy: US, Australia, China and India.

I agree it should be explored, but we need more basic research, we should not greenwash existing power plants with half-measures.

One possibility is sequestering atmospheric carbon into building materials such as concrete.

 

[disciple Clint]

I agree it should be explored, but we need more basic research, we should not greenwash existing power plants with half-measures.

One possibility is sequestering atmospheric carbon into building materials such as concrete.

How about we just let God manage the environment as He has since the beginning of time. Why are we so prideful as Americans and humans to think that the minuscule influence that we have over pollution or the effects there of are of any significance.

 

[FireDragon76]

How about we just let God manage the environment as He has since the beginning of time.

That would be unwise.

Why are we so prideful as Americans and humans to think that the minuscule influence that we have over pollution or the effects there of are of any significance.

Clearly, we do. Humans number in the billions and engage in industry on a massive scale. The influence on the environment isn't insignificant. In fact, humanity has never had an insignificant influence on the environment, one of the characteristics of our species since our origins as modern humans around 70,000 years ago.

 

[dqhall]

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia

Saudi Arabia declared economic war against the West in October 1973 and they haven't stopped since.

In college, the energy crisis and energy future were topics that we discussed often. We understood the solutions. But first the real "problem": to get out from under the blackmail of the Saudis and their OPEC alliance.

I worked with the issue in my entire working life in the utility industry.

It is time to re-assess whether to finally declare independence from OPEC.

There are obviously two side: demand and supply

DEMAND EFFORTS
There has been incredible improvement in our efficiency in the use of energy. Houses and offices are much more insulated. Autos use much less fuel per gallon. And, so much more. This will continue, sometimes with government handouts (really not necessary, sometimes without. If there are handouts, it should by the utilities who will benefit from less usage.
==============
The primary focus has always been on the supply side. How can we generate enough electricity to meet the demand.

Sure, there is the use of the direct us of il by autos and factories, so we need enough production for that. And, use of natural gas for home heat can be efficent (as well as thermal, solar, wind and others).

But the primary issue is fuel for power plants. It is almost always more efficient to use electricity in homes and factories. Homes and factories are inefficient in their use of oil and gas.
=============
RENEWABLES
In the 70's, we knew that it would decades before solar and other renewals were cost effective. There was solar even in 70's. Well, the time has come. There are many sources of renewable energy capable of fueling power plants. The primary issue is transmission into the power grid. Also, the US is unlikely to find that renewables are the primary anser in the near future.

NUCLEAR
I remember "too cheap to meter" And it is so. The primary costs that have artificially made
nuclear expensive is totally the cost of regulation. Countries like Canada and France have relied on nuclear for many decades. The "trick" is to have standardized plant design and construction. We should NOT decommission ANY nuclear plants.

If we are to build nuclear, it likel would be relatively small plants (several on the same site, just as we do gas).

OIL
This use is almost nil in power plants. The use in autos will decline by huge amounts in the next two decades. Its primary use will be in industrial facilities, with ever reduced amounts of pollution produced.

GAS
This is the transition fuel at power plants for at least another 30 years. The US and Canada have plently of reserves.

COAL
The US government made a major mistake by not taking a major role in developing "clean coal", coal with lower emissions than gas. We have a 150-year supply. I'd much rather the US be forced to rely on US clean coal than on Middle East or Russian oil. Much of Europe is in a similar position. For example, "clean" coal would help Poland (and perhaps Ukraine) to be independent from Russian oil.
=============
BOTTOM LINE
The US is clearly energy independent (ever more so if we include Canada). We need to adjust our foreign policy in such a way to recognize the independence, and have a foreign policy that helps Europe gain that independence.

I remember peak oil worries of the early 2000’s. The largest oil field in the world, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, was thought to have passed peak production.

Canada and Venezuela have large heavy oil reserves. Oil production increased in Canada. Canadian production is limited after Biden blocked a key pipeline. Venezuela was impoverished by sanctions brought upon them after the Marxists seized oil company investments there.

Lithium batteries are new. Now there are worries about lithium shortages as the price of lithium carbonate rose.

LED lightbulb technology is new. They burn bright using a fraction of the watts previously required.

Texas has so much wind power there are large swings in the price of electricity between windy and windless days.

Natural gas prices fluctuate. LNG is so expensive China and India are building more coal burning power plants.

Fracking has opened more opportunities to increase oil and gas production around the world. Saudi Arabia hopes fracking will supply their natural gas needs. Previously they burned oil to produce electricity.

Oil companies investing in Russia risk losing their investments due to the war and hostilities against NATO.

 

[Opdrey]

How about we just let God manage the environment as He has since the beginning of time.

Because God created us with free will. Since the Fall we have been aware of good and evil and God has allowed us to behave according to our will for quite a while now. It is OUR WILL that we destroy one of the greatest gifts He gave to us: the earth.

You've heard the story of the man drowning in the ocean and he prayed to God to save him. Then a Coast Guard boat came upon him but he refused to get on because he was waiting for God to save him. God sent the Coast Guard boat, but the man didn't see it that way.

That's us. We have the power to alter our climate and we are blessed by God with a massive brain to understand what we are doing. God has done all He needs to do. Now it's up to us to choose whether we simply stew in our own mess or actually get up and do something.

Why are we so prideful as Americans and humans to think that the minuscule influence that we have over pollution or the effects there of are of any significance.

Because it isn't miniscule. The scientists are telling you clearly what is going on. Are you able to understand the science in that detail? Who is most prideful then?

 

[Opdrey]

Canadian production is limited after Biden blocked a key pipeline.

A pipeline that would:

1. Encourage environmentally horrific exploration for tar sands in Alberta

2. Have almost no impact on the US economy or energy profile (the Keystone was to transport the oil from Canada to American ports to be exported out of north America)

3. Run across the country and pose a threat of leaking (some studies found that the heavier oil products were more corrosive and may lead to a higher incidence of leakage than lighter petroleum, but that is still in debate)

Fracking has opened more opportunities to increase oil and gas production around the world.

Fracking is a perfect example of what we all learn in economic geology classes: that when a resource is nearing depletion we go for lower and lower quality and more and more secondary means to get at that material. We increase our costs in a desperate bid to get more of it. And with fracking we also increase our environmental costs.

 

[cow451]

Clean coal was tried but it never made economic or environmental sense, unfortunately. No practical, energy-efficient way of sequestering the carbon was found.

“Clean coal” is a ridiculous term,

 

[FireDragon76]

A pipeline that would:

1. Encourage environmentally horrific exploration for tar sands in Alberta

2. Have almost no impact on the US economy or energy profile (the Keystone was to transport the oil from Canada to American ports to be exported out of north America)

3. Run across the country and pose a threat of leaking (some studies found that the heavier oil products were more corrosive and may lead to a higher incidence of leakage than lighter petroleum, but that is still in debate)



Fracking is a perfect example of what we all learn in economic geology classes: that when a resource is nearing depletion we go for lower and lower quality and more and more secondary means to get at that material. We increase our costs in a desperate bid to get more of it. And with fracking we also increase our environmental costs.

Fracking causes earthquakes in places like Oklahoma. It's not consequence free. It also can pollute groundwater.

 

[dqhall]

A pipeline that would:

1. Encourage environmentally horrific exploration for tar sands in Alberta

2. Have almost no impact on the US economy or energy profile (the Keystone was to transport the oil from Canada to American ports to be exported out of north America)

3. Run across the country and pose a threat of leaking (some studies found that the heavier oil products were more corrosive and may lead to a higher incidence of leakage than lighter petroleum, but that is still in debate)



Fracking is a perfect example of what we all learn in economic geology classes: that when a resource is nearing depletion we go for lower and lower quality and more and more secondary means to get at that material. We increase our costs in a desperate bid to get more of it. And with fracking we also increase our environmental costs.

They are complaining about the price of gasoline that they need for their commutes, not how evil it is to be using fuel to get to their jobs. Biden commutes to Delaware by helicopter. He is not complaining about how evil helicopters are because of their humongous carbon emissions. Maybe you can afford to live off the grid with solar panels and a whole house battery with a Tesla and charging station. Not everyone can do that. Europe imports coal from Russia. Tar sands can be refined to cleaner gasoline and diesel products

 

[Desk trauma]

How about we just let God manage the environment as He has since the beginning of time.

Does that apply to other emissions of human activity, say sewage and nuclear waste, or just the results of hydrocarbon combustion?

 

[Ana the Ist]

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia

Saudi Arabia declared economic war against the West in October 1973 and they haven't stopped since.

In college, the energy crisis and energy future were topics that we discussed often. We understood the solutions. But first the real "problem": to get out from under the blackmail of the Saudis and their OPEC alliance.

I worked with the issue in my entire working life in the utility industry.

It is time to re-assess whether to finally declare independence from OPEC.

There are obviously two side: demand and supply

DEMAND EFFORTS
There has been incredible improvement in our efficiency in the use of energy. Houses and offices are much more insulated. Autos use much less fuel per gallon. And, so much more. This will continue, sometimes with government handouts (really not necessary, sometimes without. If there are handouts, it should by the utilities who will benefit from less usage.
==============
The primary focus has always been on the supply side. How can we generate enough electricity to meet the demand.

Sure, there is the use of the direct us of il by autos and factories, so we need enough production for that. And, use of natural gas for home heat can be efficent (as well as thermal, solar, wind and others).

But the primary issue is fuel for power plants. It is almost always more efficient to use electricity in homes and factories. Homes and factories are inefficient in their use of oil and gas.
=============
RENEWABLES
In the 70's, we knew that it would decades before solar and other renewals were cost effective. There was solar even in 70's. Well, the time has come. There are many sources of renewable energy capable of fueling power plants. The primary issue is transmission into the power grid. Also, the US is unlikely to find that renewables are the primary anser in the near future.

NUCLEAR
I remember "too cheap to meter" And it is so. The primary costs that have artificially made
nuclear expensive is totally the cost of regulation. Countries like Canada and France have relied on nuclear for many decades. The "trick" is to have standardized plant design and construction. We should NOT decommission ANY nuclear plants.

If we are to build nuclear, it likel would be relatively small plants (several on the same site, just as we do gas).

OIL
This use is almost nil in power plants. The use in autos will decline by huge amounts in the next two decades. Its primary use will be in industrial facilities, with ever reduced amounts of pollution produced.

GAS
This is the transition fuel at power plants for at least another 30 years. The US and Canada have plently of reserves.

COAL
The US government made a major mistake by not taking a major role in developing "clean coal", coal with lower emissions than gas. We have a 150-year supply. I'd much rather the US be forced to rely on US clean coal than on Middle East or Russian oil. Much of Europe is in a similar position. For example, "clean" coal would help Poland (and perhaps Ukraine) to be independent from Russian oil.
=============
BOTTOM LINE
The US is clearly energy independent (ever more so if we include Canada). We need to adjust our foreign policy in such a way to recognize the independence, and have a foreign policy that helps Europe gain that independence.

These are interesting predictions. What makes you think the use of oil will decrease?

 

[Pommer]

Meanwhile the deal that President Trump brokered with OPEC+ is set to expire in April 2022.

 

[mark46]

What you have said about our need to be energy independent is absolutely true and it is a matter of national security, the only question is why the Biden administration is doing everything in its power to preclude using our resources.

utter nonsense

 

[mark46]

How about we just let God manage the environment as He has since the beginning of time. Why are we so prideful as Americans and humans to think that the minuscule influence that we have over pollution or the effects there of are of any significance.

more nonsense

Have you really forgotten the command to be good stewards of the world?

 

[mark46]

These are interesting predictions. What makes you think the use of oil will decrease?

The uses of oil have been and are threefold.

USE ONE - POWER PLANTS
This use has decreased to almost zero, being replaced primarily by natural gas.

USE TWO - TRANSPORTATION
First, the efficiency of vehicles has increased tremendously, moving from auto at 10 miles per gallon to autos with 30 or 40 miles per gallon. The use of electric cars has increased dramatically. Ford can't produce enough electric trucks to meet demand. Fleets of buses are often fueled by natural gas. So, yes, the use of oil for transportation will decrease.

USE THREE - INDUSTRY
Of course, this is the best use of oil. There is no effort to eliminate its us in industry. There has been an international effort to make industrial processes and plants more efficient in the use of oil. This use might continue to increase, but the increase would be offset with the decrease in the use of oil for power plants and transportation.

 

[Fantine]

When you said nuclear plants are too regulated you lost credibility with me, and the situation in Ukraine makes security even more necessary.

Are there no fly zones within a 5 mile radius of nuclear plants? Including drones? That would be a good start.