The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world's biggest oil producer before 2020

[Remster 30]

Man.. you were an asshole before getting all edumacated, but now! There's no stopping you!

Remster

[livendive 8]

Quote

I like how you use future predictions as facts. Per capita use and not total consumption, and use rate of growth as your metric.

I used the word "numbers" not "facts", and the assumptions leading to those projections were provided. Do you have a similar foundation for your projection that renewable energy sources will be meaningless, that all significant gains will be from "carbon based energy development on non-federal lands"? Or was that just a WAG?

Between 2001 and 2011, we added 2.1 qBTUs of carbon-based capacity, compared to 1 qBTU of hydroelectric and 6.4 qBTUs of renewable. Forgetting nuclear, and the fact that renewable production increased by a vastly larger percentage, the last 10 years has seen us add 7.4 qBTUs of non-carbon based energy, which is more than three times the additional carbon-based production in the same timeframe. The Department of Energy (whom I suspect know more about this stuff than you or me) project this trend will continue, with most of the additional capacity in the next 20 years coming from renewable sources. If you'd like to counter that argument, I'm asking you to provide something more substantial than "sustainable energy production is a big doody head".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[blueblur 0]

Quote

That's a fun argument, did you come up with it all by yourself or do you have a reference? Personally, I prefer, you know, numbers. Conservation? And increased renewable energy production leading the way? Pshaw! Your gut feeling is probably well-founded, despite the fact that renewable production gains in the last decade have nearly doubled carbon-based production gains. What do numbers matter anyhow?

Blues,
Dave

One thing to consider in the differences in gains the last decade in renewable energy is that they are fairly young technologies, so they have much more room to grow relative to "old" non-renewables. Look at the fossil fuels vs nuclear vs renewables in each of their first twenty years or so. Dramatic growth from each as the technology was expanded. Fossil fuels have hit a relative plateau during the time renewables are coming into their own.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[brenthutch 444]

< If you'd like to counter that argument, I'm asking you to provide something more substantial than "sustainable energy production is a big doody head".

Blues,
Dave

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the energy independence will be in part because of increased renewable energy production and increased fuel economy in the transportation sector...those damned hybrids!

Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that certain Republicans were crying about how the Obama administration has been destroying America by handcuffing domestic oil production? Huh...

Blues,
Dave

Energy independence will have NOTHING to do with renewables, and EVERYTHING to do with carbon based energy development on non-federal lands, in spite of BHO policies.

That's a fun argument, did you come up with it all by yourself or do you have a reference? Personally, I prefer, you know, numbers. Conservation? And increased renewable energy production leading the way? Pshaw! Your gut feeling is probably well-founded, despite the fact that renewable production gains in the last decade have nearly doubled carbon-based production gains. What do numbers matter anyhow?

Blues,
Dave

Nowhere in my original post, did I mention anything of renewables. The post was pointing out our oil and natural gas production was going to result in energy independence. Not the growth rates of a particular sector. I pointed out that the IEA stated that our oil and gas production will exceed Saudi Arabia. I never stated that we would not benefit from conservation or alternative energies. …You can have your own feelings but you can’t have your own facts.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the energy independence will be in part because of increased renewable energy production and increased fuel economy in the transportation sector...those damned hybrids!

Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that certain Republicans were crying about how the Obama administration has been destroying America by handcuffing domestic oil production? Huh...

Blues,
Dave

Energy independence will have NOTHING to do with renewables, and EVERYTHING to do with carbon based energy development on non-federal lands, in spite of BHO policies.

That's a fun argument, did you come up with it all by yourself or do you have a reference? Personally, I prefer, you know, numbers. Conservation? And increased renewable energy production leading the way? Pshaw! Your gut feeling is probably well-founded, despite the fact that renewable production gains in the last decade have nearly doubled carbon-based production gains. What do numbers matter anyhow?

Blues,
Dave

Nowhere in my original post, did I mention anything of renewables. The post was pointing out our oil and natural gas production was going to result in energy independence. Not the growth rates of a particular sector. I pointed out that the IEA stated that our oil and gas production will exceed Saudi Arabia. I never stated that we would not benefit from conservation or alternative energies. …You can have your own feelings but you can’t have your own facts.

You just got done saying that energy independence would have nothing to do with renewables and everything to do with carbon based increases. Last year, non-carbon energy production in the US exceeded 22% of the total. That's a significantly larger chunk than can be explained by "nothing to do with".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You just got done saying that energy independence would have nothing to do with renewables and everything to do with carbon based increases. Last year, non-carbon energy production in the US exceeded 22% of the total. That's a significantly larger chunk than can be explained by "nothing to do with".

How much of that 22% is nuclear? Or more relevant to the issue at hand, what percent of total power is renewable? If renewable tripled next year, how much of total energy would that constitute? When comparing apples and broccoli, leave out the marble and granite.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mpohl 1]

The US is perfectly positioned!!

We even have our religious extremists and fanatics in place already. Except here they attend church, not a mosque!

Quote

"and will be energy independent 10 years later, according to a new forecast by the International Energy Agency. "

"The U.S. is experiencing an oil boom, in large part thanks to high world prices and new technologies, including hydraulic fracking, that have made the extraction of oil and gas from shale rock commercially viable.

"From 2008 to 2011, U.S. crude oil production jumped 14%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production is up by about 10% over the same period."


"The United States, which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs, becomes all but self sufficient in net terms -- a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy importing countries,"

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/12/news/economy/us-oil-production-energy/index.html?iid=Popular

Checkmate!

[billvon 3,120]

>How much of that 22% is nuclear?

Renewables made up 9.5% of ALL energy used in 2010, and 13% of electrical power in 2010. The difference between that and the 22% is likely nuclear.

>If renewable tripled next year, how much of total energy would that constitute?

30%

[brenthutch 444]

You are right, I am wrong.

I support market based renewables, and applaud their success.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Quote

I laughed out loud when I heard that news last night, thats some hardcore wishful thinking right there.

Is that just how you feel? Do you have any data to refute the study?

The article you linked to talks about energy independence, however you keep going about US being independent on oil or becoming the largest producer in the world.

Just look at this graph and tell me do you really honestly believe that US will be independent on oil without massive drop in demand?

The Big Deal About U.S. Energy Self-Sufficiency

Quote

After production peaked in 1970, not even the discovery of Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in the U.S. (12.8 billion barrels produced to date), brought production back to the 1970 peak. Including the recent increase from shale oil, the gap between production and consumption is approximately 9 million barrels of oil per day, almost as much as 1970 peak production.

Peak, What Peak?

Quote

Needless to say, refinery gains do not inject new energy into the U.S. economy, just add volume. Also, propane and butane are not crude oil, and ethanol is not a hydrocarbon. The only hard number here, 5.7 MMbopd of crude oil production is something to write home about. This level of production requires an incredible amount of new technology and technical skills that are available only in the U.S. My department graduates each year about 150 petroleum engineers of all levels, who make this huge effort such a smashing success. Their starting salaries are in excess of three-four times the national average for college graduates. And they all have jobs.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.