|
Edwynn -> RE: Is OPEC Done? America, Energy Self-sufficient by 2035 (5/16/2013 1:19:33 PM)
|
~FR~
It's true that the US will never become completely "energy independent" anymore than we'll be completely independent with a host of other goods and services, even though on paper we might produce as much or more than is consumed domestically. For one, the US and Canada and Mexico wisely sell to or buy from each other based on logistics, where the oil production and refineries are located, where the refineries and distribution points are located, etc.
A US airline might sign a contract for fuel from Brazil because that's the best price they found at the moment, and likewise might some US produced oil or fuel find its way abroad, like as happens with millions of other goods and services.
But even sticking with that dubious terminology, most people in the US, even politicians, figured out 35 years ago that the best way to become less fuel dependent on unreliable/unstable foreign exports was to become ... less fuel dependent, period. Same thing with power generation: the less we used, the less nuke plants, the less fuel burning generators, the less environmentally destructive hydro plants, etc.
The average private/consumer fleet fuel economy made a significant jump from 75'-83', and ... we've been stuck at that level since. Of course the new mandates for 2025 will change that.
One problem is the difficulty in getting people to look beyond initial cost and considering life-of-use cost. GE came out with a new GeoSpring "ten year" hot water heater costing $1,200 that competes with $450-$650 same-life-and-capacity conventional heaters. Depending on local power rates, the total initial cost plus power bills equal out between 4-6 years. From thereon out the 'expensive' water heater becomes less and less costly than the 'cheaper' heaters. Just from memory, total expense was ~$400-$700 less over the ten years, and the majority of "ten year" heaters last longer than that.
Install enough of those things, and we've saved ourselves having to build another power plant, of any sort. Some modest bit of tax incentivization to builders wouldn't hurt, there.
Likewise with floor heating; much more efficient than the current conventional types.
Some combination of tax incentives and light tax penalties (to encourage/discourage accordingly) for builders of all types could get aggregate energy use (and cost) noticeably below current levels, even as population increases (as long as increase is slow enough).
Less financial cost across the board. Less environmental cost (fewer and smaller power plants), across the board.
The railroads, the telegraph and phone, radio, aircraft technology all had initial expense not recoverable within a short time, so both private and government financing, and their placement of large orders, got things rolling.
In the case of better (under floor, central) heating systems, the cost is only some noticeable amount more, the technology already exists; it's not like having to build the railroad system. Cost would come significantly down as the better systems became predominant.
|
|
|
|
