How feasable is energy independence?

[coloradodem2005]

It won't happen in 5 years but how feasable is it? Can it be done without raising the cost of automobiles? If so, How? I want this as much as anyone so we do not depend on foreign oil and continue to pollute and use it all up. How do we do it?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Feasable and doable

According to my husband, who is a mechanic and has been checking out this stuff. First of all, do you know that diesel engines can run on soybean oil? That's without any retrofitting. Brazil has been using alternative fuels, based on sugar, I believe, for years.

[Fitzovich]

2. Air Car

I saw a link several weeks ago for a car that runs on compressed air. I believe it was a Spanish Design and apparently in prototype stage. According to what I read it seemed great and very cost effective. If we could ever get away from oil all of our lives would be easier.

[slackmaster]

6. Does the whole system run more efficiently than a combustion engine?

You have to put energy in somewhere to compress the air.

[benburch]

9. The air car is an idiotic idea.

It requires you to compress air using electricity or other power sources at a net loss in energy, and then runs that compressed air through an expansion engine not a lot more efficient than a steam engine.

It is much, much less efficient than a primary producer such as a Stirling-electric hybrid system.

A Stirling engine is an external combustion Carnot-cycle engine that can burn just about any fuel that you can imagine, solid, liquid, or gas. Stationary Stirling engines can even be run by the sun or by geothermal heat.

[NCLib23]

3. We're moving

as a population to mmore fuel efficient cars, the Prius is selling like hotcakes. With the average driver, the movement to non-petrol cars is there, though it will take a long time to do.

The reall issue I see is trucking. Hauling massive loads up and down hills is hard on standard diesel engines. We are a long way away from making even hybrids that can do that kind of work.

[slackmaster]

4. Not just feasible, it's essential to future peace and prosperity

We must raise the fuel economy of our cars, and I don't care if it raises prices. It's been done before and it's already happening with hybrid cars as one example. Technology will provide solutions, and people may have to make some appropriate lifestyle choices like living with a smaller SUV, telecommuting, and making better use of public mass transportation.

[NCLib23]

5. Also I think there is some sense of false relief

The corporations which control out oil now, will just convert to producing the next fuel.

[MajorFlaw]

10. It sure doesn't look like it. The "oil boys" seem determined

to squeeze every last dollar out of their remaining resources which also requires them to oppose and cripple attempts to devalue their assets by providing alternatives. Just my take on it.

[brokensymmetry]

7. I think it is.

We face two problems, right? Gathering energy is one. Storing it in a form usable by cars and other machines is the other.

So, let's look at gathering it first. Solar cells are starting to get practical, and solar hot water heaters are practical. Let's give tax credits (not just deductions!) for installing solar hot water heaters, and substantial deductions for solar panels. Let's also have enabling legislation that permits everyone to put solar panels on the roof without regard to local ordinances or deed restrictions.

We can also provide incentives for improvements in efficiency - more insulation, double glazed windows, and so forth. New government buildings of every sort need to be built with energy in mind - everything from more windows, and windows that can be opened to deploying those solar cells on the roof I keep talking about.

Once we get enough energy input, we worry about storage. Hydrogen seems like a good bet here. Yes, it consumes energy - that's why we solve the gathering problem first.

And considering the cost of our little adventure in Iraq, I think we could fund the effort if we kept the troops home for a change.

[upperleftedge]

13. Veggies work.

I have a friend who runs his '71 Benz on bio-diesel. His sailboat's Volvo engine runs on it too. He has solar panels and a wind generator on his house. His energy costs are tiny compared to most people's. It didn't cost very much and it works.
I agree that the real issue is trucks, trains and machinery. I bet if the Teamsters backed it there would be a conversion to bio-diesel overnight.
If we had a President, which we don't, he/she could by executive order convert every government vehicle to bio-diesel. The farmers would love it. The environment would love it and we would still have enough oil to make all the damned plastic you want.
But until the "oil depletion allowance" laws are repealed this won't happen. The last guy to propose that was JFK and you know what they did to him.
You don't have to wait for the government to do something. There is nothing more fun than to drive down the road knowing you aren't part of the environmental problem and you are not supporting this war just by driving to work.

[brokensymmetry]

14. Good points!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[JohnyCanuck]

23. But what's the EPR (energy profit ratio)

How much energy do you have to put in to plant, grow, harvest and process the plant material to produce the bio-diesel or alcohol end product compared to the energy content of the end product itself. Oil has a very high EPR. The figures I've seen range from 100 to 1 for oil obtained from a new oil field down to 10 to 1 for oil obtained from mature fields. That is, for every joule of energy you invest to produce conventional oil, you get out anywhere from 10 to 100 joules of energy at the other end. Our economy is therefore based on using a fuel with a high EPR.

....Oil used to have an EPR of 100 to 1. It only took one barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil. This was such a fantastic ratio that oil was practically free energy. In fact, at one point in Texas, water cost more than oil! Oil's EPR is now down to 10 to 1, which is still pretty good. If a proposed alternative energy source doesn't have an EPR comparable to oil, the amount of good it does us is very limited. Keep these questions in mind as we examine the shortcomings of the oil alternatives in the following questions.

www.hknet.org.nz/Oil-in-crisis.htm

My guess is that bio-diesel obtained by growing and processing plant material will not come close to the EPR that conventional oil provides and in the case of ethanol we know the EPR using current methods of production is actually negative.

Biofuels and the Ethanol Myth
Oil derived from plants is sometimes promoted as a fuel source to replace petroleum. However, a comprehensive study by Giampietro and others (1997) concludes: "Large-scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it." The facts and experience with ethanol are an example.

The Post-Petroleum Paradigm – and Population

Whether producing bio-diesel will be more efficient than producing ethanol or whether its better to get bio-diesel from hemp rather than from soybeans, isn't the really important issue. The issue for our western style developed economies will be, how does producing bio-diesel or ethanol compare to producing gasoline/conventional diesel in energy efficiency.

Also another point we have to consider is how much land will be taken up to grow the diesel-oil or alcohol crops to meet transportation needs and will that leave us enough arable land to meet our food requirements (especially if population growth continues). Our factory farming methods are already very damaging to the soil and unsustainable in the long term.

FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY

by David Pimental, Cornell University & Mario Giampietro Istituto of Nazionale della Nutrizione, Rome

KEY FINDINGS

At the present growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population will double to more than half a billion people within the next 60 years. It is estimated that approximately one acre of land is lost due to urbanization and highway construction alone for every person added to the U.S. population.

This means that only 0.6 acres of farmland would be available to grow food for each American in 2050, as opposed to the 1.8 acres per capita available today.At least 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current American dietary standards. Food prices are projected to increase 3 to 5-fold within this period.

If present population growth, domestic food consumption and topsoil loss trends continue, the U.S. will most likely cease to be a food exporter by approximately 2025 because food grown in the U.S. will be needed for domestic purposes.

Since food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually, the loss of this income source would result in an even greater increase in America's trade deficit.

Considering that America is the world's largest food exporter, the future survival of millions of people around the world may also come into question if food exports from the U.S. were to cease.

FOOD, LAND, POPULATION, AND THE U.S. ECONOMY

So will the land actually support the amount of plant material we are going to require if we want to convert a large proportion of our present fossil fuel consumption to bio fuels and still maintain our current energy intensive economies?

I can see that bio-diesel etc. might help as a bridging fuel to help ease us into a new type of less energy intensive economy, but my concern is too many people expect that the scientist in the lab coats will pull a rabbit from the hat by coming up with some magic fuel elixir which will allow us to magically replace petroleum and still maintain our energy intensive consumer culture on ad infinitum.

[opihimoimoi]

32. A Very Meaningful and pertinent Post< sending beer and ribs >

Come, we go figure

[benburch]

8. Just barely possible.

If we start a crash program, spend not another dime on the Military, and tax the hell out of the rich we just might be able to do it before the great dieoff occurs as a result of Peak Oil.

If we fail to do this, most of us will die before our time of starvation, exposure, disease or war.

[mhr]

11. If You Mean Oil Energy Independence - NO

The problem is a little reported beast called "Peak Oil". Essentially we have consumed half the worlds oil endowment. With rising world wide demand there will not be enough oil to go around for all that clamor for it. The result - continued competition for a dwindling resource resulting in ever more wars.

Yes, but aren't there replacements? No! There is no known substitute energy that will replace the worlds current use of oil. No amount of bio-diesel, no amount of solar, no amount of hydro, no amount wind that can totally replace what we now consume in oil energy.

Then what do we do? Unless we are prepared for massive global dieoff our only options are massive global conservation. Yeah that's right! - doing with less and less. Sorry folks, the future is not as bright as the past.

But the alternative energies will help won't they? Yes they will help us adjust through a transition period to a new equilibrium where each of us has much less energy to consume than we do today. However, that future is much different and much less affluent than what we now enjoy, especially in the West.

If you would like to learn more see the following links.

Websites of interest include:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Home.html
http://globalpublicmedia.com/
http://www.oilcrash.com/running.htm
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.durangobill.com/Rollover.html
http://www.asponews.org
http://www.gulland.ca/depletion/depletion.htm
http://www.dieoff.org/
http://www.oilanalytics.org/
http://www.greatchange.org/
http://www.oilcrisis.com/
http://www.after-oil.co.uk/
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://hubbert.mines.edu
http://www.museletter.com/archive/cia-oil.html

Books:

Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil
by David Goodstein

The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies
by Richard Heinberg

Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage
by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight : Waking Up to Personal and Global Transformation
by Thom Hartmann

The Oil Factor: How Oil Controls the Economy and Your Financial Future
by Stephen Leeb, Donna Leeb

News Groups:

Energy Resources
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/

Alas Babylon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlasBabylon/

Running on Empty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmpty2/

[coloradodem2005]

18. I mean in general.

I don't mean energy independence that still requires the use of oil.

[mhr]

27. The Answer Is NO If You Are Talking About Our Present Society

Simply put, the decline of oil production will soon become significant. This has far-reaching consequences as the price for remaining oil will go ever higher.

This will translate into more expensive everything as less is made and fewer and fewer people will have the ability to pay. What products are dependent on oil - just about everything important to our auto-based culture - food(fertilizers), medicine, transportation fuel (auto, truck, boat, plane, train), plastics (the stuff that makes the cars so cool looking these days), etc.

In essence we will be returning to a local culture featuring locally grown foods, more mass transportation, more walking, greater use of bicycles, smaller housing, living much closer to work, and reduced freedom to travel long distances. In essence the age of petroleum man is coming to a close. We either adapt or die.

[SOS]

12. Carters CAFE standards

enacted in the 1970's would have freed the US from ALL imported oil by 1991.
Reagan, bowing to pressure from US oil companies, scrapped Carters standards in 1985. They haven't been touched since and fuel efficiency is now at it's lowest in 20 years. We had the opportunity to be free of imported oil, but Reagan, Bush Sr. and Exxon would not allow it to happen.

So...it is very feasible, but will never be acheived due to the greed and anti-Americanism of the Republican Party and Big Oil.

[Deja Q]

26. More on CAFE...

http://www.jimnewsom.com/PFW-EnergyMissedOpportunity.html

Under the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards now in place, a manufacturer's cars and light trucks are required to average 24 miles per gallon when tested in the Environmental Protection Agency's lab (27.5 mpg for passenger cars, 20.7 mpg for trucks.) Out in the real world, however, the average was actually 20.4 mpg for the 2002 model year, the worst since 1980. And Hummers and other monster SUVs are not included in these figures.


Kerry and McCain proposed eliminating the dual car/truck categorization and raising the standard to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and ease pollution. Unfortunately, automakers, oil industry lobbyists and senators from states with auto plants threw their muscle against the bill, claiming it would lead to job loss and "effectively eliminate sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks." The proposal was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 62-38 in 2002, less than a year after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. (more...)


http://www.nader.org/interest/041104.html (who cares if it's Nader, the words are still eyebrow-raising for all the right reasons)

The CAFE standards started at a shamefully low level in 1978 when auto companies selling cars in the United States were first required to meet a meager 18 mile per gallon (mpg) auto fleet standard. In 1981 Joan Claybrook, now the President of Public Citizen, was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As the administration of President Jimmy Carter was winding down, Claybrook advanced a NHTSA notice that called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995. Interestingly the notice pointed out that the auto industry itself said it could reach in excess of 30 mpg fuel economy by 1985 with GM saying it could do 33 mpg. The Reagan Administration didn't waste any time and withdrew the NHTSA notice just three months after it was issued. After the original Congressional mandate of 27.5 mpg took effect in 1985, the Reagan Administration rolled the standard back to 26 mpg in 1986. Finally in 1989 the first Bush Administration moved the standard back to the 1985 level of 27.5 mpg. There was no improvement in the CAFE standards underthe Clinton Administration. (Clinton also removed the 55MPH federal speed limit, which was put into place because faster speeds use up extra oil more quickly...)


The Bush/Cheney Energy plan of 2001 put off raising CAFE standards. In 2002, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), and John McCain (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the "National Fuel Savings and Security Act of 2002". The amendment called for fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, beginning with model year 2005, to reach a combined average fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon by 2015. This amendment lost.
(WHEN in 2002, before or after the Election, as if that matters?)

[JM]

15. We need to change three things...

1) The use of oil - moving to hybrids, biodiesel, etc. are only one part of the equation.

2) Distributed power generation - We spend billions to build these monstrosities to generate power, many of which run on oil, natural gas, and coal. If we generate power at the home using residential stirling engines, we save the 10-15% of power we bleed off over the high tension lines.

3) If businesses that could go to to a distributed model had employees work from home 2-3 days a week, we would save millions of barrels a year in oil, save billions in road repairs, and save tons of pollution.

JM

[pauliedangerously]

16. Feasible isn't the word, it's inedvidable

My view is that we should be building solar power plants and aggressively working on developing improved battery technology.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The automobile is at its peak right now. You have to understand that fossil fuels are stored solar energy, and it took millions of years for that energy to accumulate and turn into that sticky goo and odorless gas.

Energy independence has to be approached two ways: improved efficiencies and different power sources. Again, the main source is the sun. Hybrids are only going to buy us extra time to make the transition.

You know those hydrogen fuel cells they keep yakking about? Well, I hate to break it to you, but hydrogen is primarily produced by FOSSIL FUELS...NOT A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

They are working on ways to generate hydrogen from water, but that takes a lot of energy.

The future is in electricity produced by the sun's energy. Right now, I know of two methods: photovoltaics, which generate electricity directly and parabolic reflectors, which are used to generate steam and run turbine generators.

My vision of the future is more and more people generating their own power, not ALL of their own power, but a significant amount in order to ease the demand on the power grid.



I am convinced that the oil and auto industies has been deliberately stalling innovations in alternative energy so they can generate short term profits...these industries have peaked and the only way they will go now is down; there will be a few little waves along the way, but the long term trend from now on is DOWN. Look up M. King Hubbert if you don't believe it...you won't hear his name on FOX News until it's too late.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Legalize hemp

and half our energy problems will be solved.

[beachman]

19. it's totallly feasible

Clean, non-polluting technology to produce electricity has been available for over 100 years, but it would bankrupt the entrenched interests in the power grid, which is why it hasn't happened.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi beachman!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[beachman]

22. thanks

Gotta figure out how to do the visuals one day, but I'll raise a real beer on my end as a greeting. Actually, I am about to bike down to the beach for a quick walk, but will raise that glass when I get back.

[Deja Q]

20. Depends on the cost of the fuel and if we're going to allow it to be grown

Hey, if a farmer wants to sell his land at an inflated price so someone can tear up the irreplaceable topsoil to build a $250k home, that's fine by me. That's one reason why milk is so expensive. Our greed-based economy forgets that we're all organic and that we live in a confined area. Milk, oil, you name it, doesn't come out of a bottomless well.

And how much does it cost to turn dead grass or whatever other nonsense into fuel? If it's costly, it cannot be done.

Europe may survive the crunch, but America sur as hell won't. We learned zilch from the 1970s. Until people face this looming crisis (and they're too fucking scared to, as with their freedoms) there is no hope. It's as simple as that, anybody who says otherwise is blissfully dreaming.

And not to forget, the people who would be hurt most by a change is the wealthy. They're not going to do anything about it either.

I made a post about this yesterday. It's amazing how many people believe that there's a chance with ethanol and burning other plantlife to make fuel...

[wuushew]

31. Why? what are the problems with ethanol?

If we just used cellulose ethanol could we not simply leave many fields fallow to prevent soil depletion?

The infrastructure is there and internal combustion technology is easily converted. I agree that consumption of energy needs to be massively scaled back. We still have plenty of coal which could be converted into oil. As long as we switch to nuclear as our primary electricity generation the costs of using easily handled and practical liquid fuels should not be given up on.

[Newtopia]

24. The Hydrogen Highway - PHENOMENAL READ

This great article is a great introduction to the hydrogen economy. It's based on a real pilot program in Chicago and NE Illinois.




THE HYDROGEN HIGHWAY: ON THE ROAD TO RENEWABLE ENERGY
by Christopher Tynan

A shift from an economy based on gasoline to one based upon hydrogen is as much a sociological problem as a technical one. It will require massive infrastructure investment, innovative public policy, changes to core consumer behavior, and a couple strokes of good luck just to get off the starting block.

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue17/features/hydrogen.php

[troublemaker]

25. Who Cares? Energy independence is a silly goal.

I cannot see what's desirable about energy independence. I manage to get through the day okay even though we don't manufacture hardly any TV sets in the US. We import shoes, computers, cell phones... all sorts of things were think we need.

Energy Independence is only a meaningful concept if someone thinks the entire world will impose a global oil trade sanction on the US. The danger is having oil prices raised, not having oil supplies cut-off "at any price." There will always be willing sellers at *some* price. Would 'independence' make energy any cheaper? If not, who cares? We are, after all, talking about money.

Say a $20/barrel surcharge was stuck on all US imports. And say that we can cover exactly 50% of our needs domestically. So what would the difference be between a barrel from Texas and a barrel from Venezuela? Probably nothing! We would be buying countless millions of barrels with the $20 surcharge tacked on, thereby demonstrating that when push comes to shove we are willing to pay $20 more/barrel. So why would an oil company price a Texas barrel at $20 below the going rate?

Looked at another way, there's plenty of oil in the US that we don't get out of the ground because it's too expensive to get at it. It's too deep, not concentrated enough, under 500 feet of water, under land too valuable for other purposes, etc..

When the $20 surcharge is tacked on that will make some hard to reach oil worth drilling. What will that newly exploited oil cost? More than oil costs today. That's the whole point. The price hike would drive exploitation of expensive oil. Companies will drill oil here right up to the $20 surcharge price and not a barrel more. Would we spend an extra $21/barrel on domestic oil when we can buy foreign oil for an extra $20?

But what about a real oil embargo? Cold turkey. Well, of one wants to make policy based on assumptions involving the *entire world* (including Canada and Mexico) cooperating in trying to destroy the US I'm not sure I want any part of it. First, it's absurd as a basis for policy because it's not going to happen. Second, assuming it could happen, whatever the hell we would have to do to generate that absurd reaction is probably something we oughtn't do in the first place.

[Jose Diablo]

28. Totally feasible

If we can't get enough oil, they we make do with less. Maybe a lot of people die when we cannot grow enough food, but hey, we will make do. Always have, one way or another.

BTW, we can thank Reagan for stopping the push into alternate energy sources and economizing on energy consumption that Carter started. Wouldn't do for us Americans to do things a little more efficiently, we deserve better. Thats what Reagan told us, don't worry- be happy.

I think, if it wasn't for Reagan, then we wouldn't care one way or another about middle east oil.

[sendero]

29. I have a little place...

... in the country that my wife and I intend to "retire" to in about 7 years. I've been doing a lot of study about "off the grid" energy systems, solar heating and water heating, thermal mass heating/cooling etc.

Running a small house off the grid is doable but not cheap and not trivial. You can forget about heating/cooling/cooking off-grid because solar/battery systems that would handle that would cost more than your house.

If you can minimize your electricity needs, it is possible to build a solar systems with batteries, solar panels, charge controller and inverter that will run refrigerator/freezer, lights, tv/radio and small non-heating appliances for several thousand dollars.

Folks have been trumpeting the lowering cost of solar panels for a while now but they are still expensive. And for a typical system, the batteries and inverter cost more than the panels anyway.

I recently built a small generator that consists of a "lawnmower" engine, an automotive alternator, two deep-cycle trolling batteries and a 750-watt inverter. This gizmo will power my shed, running lights, radio, jigsaw, drill - but won't run big stuff like a table saw. Every several to many hours you crank up the engine to recharge the batteries. It was a fun little project, but of course in a real emergency situation there may be no gasoline :(.

I realize your post was about cars and eventually I believe technology and science will deliver us from oil. But for now it is too profitable and as long as oil is bringing in the $$ there will be no real alternative. Sorry for the cynicism.

[Spiffarino]

30. It had better work

If it doesn't, we're all in a world of hurt. I'm glad some have made note of Ronnie Reagan's sellout of US energy independence at the behest of Big Oil. That single fact is central to the problems we're facing today. Reagan's actions guaranteed we would be sucking the teat of Saudi Arabia for years to come.

[Porcupine]

33. It doesn't matter one whit, we're manufacturing almost nothing.......

here in America. I repair rentals for a living. Almost none of what I use to keep houses and apartments up to the 'merican standard of living is made in the U.S. We can be as energy independant as we like as long as we give up driving, heating, lighting, plumbing, bicycling (even Schwinn is offshore) and electronics.

Other than that we'll be fine. :evilgrin: