18 January 2012

US Energy Independence by 2030?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook
My how expectations change. From the FT:
North America will become almost totally self-sufficient in energy in two decades, thanks to a big growth in the production of biofuels, shale gas and unconventional oil, according to projections by BP.

Presenting the oil company’s energy outlook to 2030, BP said North America’s energy deficit would turn into a “small surplus” by that year. That contrasts with Europe, which will have to import some 60 per cent of its natural gas by 2030 as demand grows and domestic production declines.

8 comments:

  1. An interesting comment showed up in one of the Climategate 2.0 emails from Tom Wigley that pertains to this topic.

    "Have you read Tom Blees's book yet. I must say, it is very impressive -- so much so that I have changed my mind on the technology issue. It does seem that IFRs could "save the planet". Not only this, but they could eliminate the nuclear waste problem (no need for Yucca Mountain). If we can get onto this quickly enough, IFRs could also eliminate the need for all but the most minor carbon tax (or its cap and trade equivalent).There is some very disturbing stuff in the Blees book, not least the possibility that, through the lies and misdirections of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, we may have lost the opportunity to solve the problem cheaply. History may well judge these guys as much worse than Bush Jr."

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3557.txt

    ReplyDelete
  2. Papa Zu -

    So, the problem is overcoming preconceived and even visceral notions about common knowledge.

    If this is the reaction of an educated individual, and especially someone with a vocation in a scientific discipline, then is there really any hope for the general population?

    This is a problem in particular with nuclear technology. The general population has been taught to fear and even despise it. There is limited rational education concerning its true nature, and much of it, as with the AGW/AGCC/"climate disruption" campaign, has relied on influencing perception through emotional manipulation.

    The experts and various advocates created the problem, and they need to resolve it. We need a rational basis for evaluating and developing technology. With nuclear technology especially, that is largely absent, and the hysteria has been fed through a selective recall of history and an incomplete education.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Present trends continue and the world oil export market won't have anything left to import to the US by around 2030.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ... and pedex, we'll finally have to tap into our shale, offshore, and arctic reserves of limits due to current environmental regulation and technology limitations, exporting them for a mere $800/bbl.

    Maybe we're "stupid like a fox"

    ReplyDelete
  5. @4

    price isn't the problem, return on energy is

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pedex, as long as the cost is less than the price it will be worth doing. If we need to pump 4 barrels to sell 1 and still make money it makes sense. If return on energy is negative it can still be economic if the energy invested is cheaper than the energy extracted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @6

    not at any volume worth talking about you won't

    you might wanna think about what money really is and what it represents

    after that a basic fundamental understanding of how leverage works in economics from a systemic point of view

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whadayathink Roger: will this finally be in reach due to the shale-gas revolution???

    ReplyDelete