Energy Independence For U.S.? Try Energy Security

[christiefan915]

Romney claims he has a plan for energy independence by 2020 but this article says "not possible".

"Gone from this year's presidential campaign are most mentions of climate change, environmental pollution, or green jobs. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee, prefers to call attention instead to the country's continuing dependence on foreign energy sources. "I will set a national goal of North American energy independence by the year 2020," Romney declared in August.

The line is now a standard part of Romney's stump speech, and he repeated it in his first two debates with President Obama. With that promise, Romney joins a long line of U.S. leaders who have preached the virtues of energy independence. Few, however, have explained precisely what this goal means.

A Global Market

In truth, it would be virtually impossible for any country to be totally independent where energy is concerned. Not only would it have to produce all its own oil; it would also have to be independent of the global economy."

(Continued)

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163573768/energy-independence-for-u-s-try-energy-security

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Romney claims he has a plan for energy independence by 2020 but this article says "not possible".

"Gone from this year's presidential campaign are most mentions of climate change, environmental pollution, or green jobs. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee, prefers to call attention instead to the country's continuing dependence on foreign energy sources. "I will set a national goal of North American energy independence by the year 2020," Romney declared in August.

The line is now a standard part of Romney's stump speech, and he repeated it in his first two debates with President Obama. With that promise, Romney joins a long line of U.S. leaders who have preached the virtues of energy independence. Few, however, have explained precisely what this goal means.

A Global Market

In truth, it would be virtually impossible for any country to be totally independent where energy is concerned. Not only would it have to produce all its own oil; it would also have to be independent of the global economy."

(Continued)

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163573768/energy-independence-for-u-s-try-energy-security

1) Energy independence does not focus exclusively on oil.
2) We most certainly could be energy independent by 2020... we could do it in the next 3-5 years if we decided to.

70% of our oil consumption is used in transportation. We have the current technology to switch from gasoline to nat gas engines TODAY. We do not have the distribution system. That would take 3-5 years to put in place. At the same time the auto companies could be made aware of the switch and they could retool (if necessary) their plants to account for the change. We have an abundance of nat gas, it is cheap relative to oil. It does not take away from performance (in terms of horse power) etc... and the vast majority of consumers would get on board if they knew it meant keeping the jobs and the money here in the US vs. shipping them off. In addition, their fuel bills would decrease and the reduction in the use of oil would drop the price of it as well. This would make other oil based products cheaper.

If we import 60% of our oil and 70% of our oil is used in transportation, this could by itself get us to energy independence. Add in the ability to tap our own oil resources in greater quantity and it is certainly feasible.

 

[christiefan915]

1) Energy independence does not focus exclusively on oil.
2) We most certainly could be energy independent by 2020... we could do it in the next 3-5 years if we decided to.

70% of our oil consumption is used in transportation. We have the current technology to switch from gasoline to nat gas engines TODAY. We do not have the distribution system. That would take 3-5 years to put in place. At the same time the auto companies could be made aware of the switch and they could retool (if necessary) their plants to account for the change. We have an abundance of nat gas, it is cheap relative to oil. It does not take away from performance (in terms of horse power) etc... and the vast majority of consumers would get on board if they knew it meant keeping the jobs and the money here in the US vs. shipping them off. In addition, their fuel bills would decrease and the reduction in the use of oil would drop the price of it as well. This would make other oil based products cheaper.

If we import 60% of our oil and 70% of our oil is used in transportation, this could by itself get us to energy independence. Add in the ability to tap our own oil resources in greater quantity and it is certainly feasible.

Is there any politician out there talking about this now and if not, why not?

Read the part where Nixon talked about it almost 40 years ago and still nothing. He was like you, said we could do this in 5-6 years.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Is there any politician out there talking about this and if not, why not?

Not that I am aware of. Why not? Because there is not a collective spine in DC.

I was simply pointing out that they are wrong to say it is virtually impossible. All it takes is the political will to get the ball rolling. A man to the moon type initiative.

If the public was aware of what I just posted, do you think they would get behind the effort?

I would think so. The money, the jobs, the savings on fuel costs... I honestly have not seen a downside to this. Not saying there isn't one, just that I haven't seen one to date.

Given the unemployment rate, the build out of the nat gas distribution system would provide much needed jobs. The money earned from those working these jobs would get pumped back into other sectors. It would also reduce the federal and state monies being used to support the unemployed.

The money that normally would go overseas to other oil producing nations would in turn stay here. Again boosting our economy. The savings in fuel costs would also get pumped back into other sectors of the market.

 

[christiefan915]

It seems this would be a win-win situation yet pols aren't jumping on it. I'm cynical and always look at following the money, so have to wonder who's worried about losing out if this could be implemented. Maybe big oil? I'm not well-informed on this topic and the writer made sense to me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It seems this would be a win-win situation yet pols aren't jumping on it. I'm cynical and always look at following the money, so have to wonder who's worried about losing out if this could be implemented. Maybe big oil? I'm not well-informed on this topic and the writer made sense to me.

The writer is correct to a degree to say 'independence' may not be the right wording. Given that oil/nat gas are fungible assets and their pricing is subject to world supply/demand. So 'secure' may be a better phrasing.

Big Oil is not stupid... with Chevron and Exxon already buying up nat gas production, they have the ability to make money off that as well. I would GUESS that you would see Big Oil scoop up the big nat gas producers like Chesapeake and Apache. Either that or they would enter the fray to compete with them head to head.

Gas station owners would have to build out the distribution... they would be the ones shelling out the cash with no major upside. The government should provide the incentive for them to convert. The net economic benefit to the country would justify the subsidy.

I think it is right to be cynical. I think the reason the pols aren't jumping on it is that they don't like change... unless the change gives them more power.

The other cynical view to think about in terms of who may be hurt... defense contractors... would we give two shits about the middle east if not for the oil there? Doubtful... look at how much press the Congo, Sudan, etc... get relative to the middle east. While there is oil in Africa, its production is dominated by the Chinese and its resources pale in comparison to the Middle East.