To Liberals, this is why energy independence is so vital to National Security

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by darksithpro, Oct 14, 2018.

  1. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #1
    To those of you who don't want to drill Oil, or LNG in our country, because of the environment and all that, I give you exhibit A: https://www.motherjones.com/politic...te-if-punished-for-journalists-disappearance/

    "Saudi Arabia’s government angrily reacted to warnings from President Donald Trump that it may face punishment for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, threatening the kingdom “will respond with greater action” if it is pressured over his death. The threat was not-so-subtly tied to a note that oil-rich Saudi Arabia “plays an effective and vital role in the world economy.”
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #2
    ...where does the US get most of its oil?:rolleyes:

    I’d be fine if “energy independence” actually meant anything other than “poison the water aquifers for that last bit of oil for a dying system” but it doesn’t.
     
  3. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    I find this discussion quite odd, given that it is liberals who are most actively working toward energy independence. Who exactly do you think passed the recent California legislation calling for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045? Who do you think supports higher fuel economy standards for automobiles?
     
  4. FreemanW, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018

    FreemanW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    The Real Northern California
    #4
    We've passed the point of arguing over the existence of gravity, whether the earth is flat or a globe, and whether the sun revolves around the earth.
    At this point, anthropogenic climate change is settled science (unless your paycheck, portfolio, or job sector, depends upon the denialism of the facts) and the discussion point needs to move from "reducing" carbon fuel dependence and greenhouse gases production through the "zero" paradigm all the way to "reversing" and repairing the ecosphere.
    I give that proposal zero chance of happening.
    At this point, smart money is on the drain that humanity specifically and life on earth generally is circling.
    I do not have an active subscription to Financial Times . . . . but Saudi Arabia is looking to invest some of their pocket change ($30bn - $50bn) in solar and wind renewables.
    https://ft.com/content/d370829e-dbfe-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6

    Here's a non-subscription wall article:
    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-...o-Spend-50-Billion-On-Massive-Solar-Push.html

    If you favor Bloomberg:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...k-30-solar-wind-projects-in-50-billion-pledge

    Clearly, President Serial Rapist Flim Flam Con Man and his crew of kleptocrats has put the United States in the driver seat of the global short bus.
     
  5. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #5
    Hmmm...well, you're not really talking about "energy independence" here, darksithpro. You're talking about fossil fuel independence. While that is an important issue at the moment, (and given our current energy infrastructure), our goal should be to cut our reliance on fossil fuels to zero and let OPEC eat their oil. We should be striving to get to the point where the only use for fossil fuels is as lubricants. That is energy independence. And it should transcend all party lines.
     
  6. hulugu, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #6
    Keep in mind that projects like the Keystone pipeline don't contribute to strategic independence the way you'd think, and so long as we're buying fuel on fungible markets, we're still going to be hit by big market shifts.

    If Saudi Arabia suddenly tries to stop production, the price of fuel will go up in nearly every market. (Remember, Exxon won't just keep oil pulled from the Gulf of Mexico in the American market when for example, the European market has a 30 percent premium.)

    I would argue that this helps show that localized renewables, and large-scale nuclear, are far better for our long-term independence.
     
  7. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #7
    I can agree with that. But we haven't had a new nuclear plant since the 70's, right?
     
  8. Hater macrumors 6502a

    Hater

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    #8
    Why only to Liberals? Why not to everyone?
     
  9. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #9

    Fair point, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. My apologies.
     
  10. niji Contributor

    niji

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    tokyo
    #10
    trump has reduced the basis of standing up for human rights to the level of whether or not the USA would lose out on selling military planes.
    when the legitimacy of the USA is based on sales, it can not claim any sort of leadership role.
    to see this in terms of "energy independence" is one of the most strange basis for decisions.
    global interdependance of like minded, democratic and humanitarian nations is so much less risky than gaining "energy independence".
    trumps tepid support for britain when russia used chemical weapons to murder people; always siding with countries and dictators who can help his family increase their ill-gotten wealth.
    these are the kinds of things that drive trump and are driving the decisions of all the deplorables who are allowing him to stay in office.
    the USA has the tech to create its own sustainable sources of energy, and lead the world into the future at the same time.
     
  11. hawkeye_a, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018

    hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #11
    I think the original poster meant energy independence in the geo-political sense, and for everyone in the country including the poor, not just coastal-champagne-socialists and watermelons(communists masquerading as “greens”).

    If energy inderpendence were left upto those who you have put your faith in, it would probably never happen. In the past decade, despite the best efforts of the previous administration, this country has become far more energy independent (and is actually exporting energy) than it has been since the end of the second world war(i think).... and its because of the work from the industry you seem to hate.
     
  12. FreemanW, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018

    FreemanW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    The Real Northern California
    #12
    Both Keystone and Dakota Access Pipeline intend to serve International markets as their sole customer.

    Keystone goes to the Gulf Coast with a tie-in to the tank farm in Patoka, IL.
    Dakota Access has the tank farm in Patoka, IL as it's terminus. Patoka, IL tank farm can certainly feed the Keystone and be enlisted to service the Gulf Coast terminus.
    So, yeah. No domestic supply, just international markets.

    They perform zero impact on U.S. domestic oil dependency and serve as quintessential exemplars for placing greed and the servicing of wealth and power above all else, including the ecosphere and life that depends upon its health.

    Snake oil would be a perfect pun to describe how they have been sold.
     
  13. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #13
    Look at the latest Cali laws regarding Federal rigs. They ignore the 3x as many State rigs...
    Still, it has to be cost effective. You can’t operate at a loss or break even.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 14, 2018 ---
    Since when? I am using Cali as an example.
    Lots of new rules and laws but they bite themselves or limit growth at the same time.
    They have the “let’s do it” attitude but just can’t leave the political games out of it.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #14
    Well, construction for those plants began in the 1970s, but the last one, Watts Bar began commercial operation in 1996.

    And, keep in mind that in 2010, President Barack Obama included in his 2011 budget over $54 billion for nuclear power, including loan guarantees for two Generation III nuclear power plants in Georgia. One reactor will be online in 2021, while the other should be online in 2022. (Note, Trump will certainly take credit for these new plants.)

    This was part of his energy strategy, which included a cap and trade framework, and the end to billions in fossil fuel subsidies.

    Republicans tore this bill to shreds publicly, even though they have historically been for nuclear power, and some environmentalists kvetched about the new plants, though others, like the Sierra Club praised the effort.

    While environmentalists can get twitchy about nuclear power, that's largely because they understand the waste issues, and they understand that while powerful, nuclear power is not "Carbon free." It is, however, a way forward and environmentalists are split on this issue.

    But, Republicans have largely been in the way, even with this deal, arguing that the current regulatory framework kept nuclear power from growing, and spent most of their time litigating climate change rather than just accept it and start thinking about how to bring jobs and investment to the United States.
     
  15. RichardMZhlubb, Oct 15, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018

    RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Replacing fossil-fuels in electric generation with renewables and nuclear is not a “coastal elite” issue. Right now, there is more new wind and solar generation in the interconnection queue for the midwestern electric system operator than the total current demand levels for that market.
     
  16. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502a

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #16
    These should be seen as (and only seen as) strategic reserves.

    Read something you might tap into when no other sources are available and only for means that can't be fulfilled by non-fossil fuels/energy.
     
  17. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #17
    We do have alternatives ... kind of.
    Renewable has a ways to go to become mainstream and to adequately supply our needs.
    Other stuff under development.
    It will take time. Between now and that time we need alternatives.
    Strategic reserve? Something different and these would need to be drilled, tapped, and ready to go to fall into that bucket. Look at Cali and the road blocks they are trying to put in place...
     
  18. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #18
    How about we drill for oil here since there's TONS of it everywhere? That would allow us to cut off the Saudis and whomever else. But, we cant because the spotted tree cows might get upset.

    The lefties idea of energy independance is taxing and penalizing the crap out of everything and everyone. Not into that, sorry.
     
  19. FreemanW, Oct 16, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018

    FreemanW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    The Real Northern California
    #19
    In the current Climate Change landscape, there are three factions:
    1.) Scientific Consensus that Anthropogenic driven Climate Change is happening and human's have until 2030 to reverse trending that will drive tipping points into uncontrollable domino cascades of destructive consequences that will snuff out life on earth as it is currently defined.

    2.) The Climate Change Deniers that obfuscate, call settled science unsettled, and generally claim up is down, hot is cold, in is out, and red is green.

    3.) Scientists familiar with the current evidence and modeling and believe that we have no where near as much time as 2030 to reverse trajectory. Stuff is going to "get real" far too quickly and we are in very, very, very, deep do do.

    If your post represents any significant number of humans? Yep. We are done. Pack your bags cause we're leaving this planet; you don't have to go home, but ya can't stay here.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 16, 2018 ---
    Small detail:
    Without taxpayer largess, nuclear power plants never attain a "break even" point, much less any R.O.I.

    Yeah, another "Free Market" myth, like so much greenhouse gas methane, popped.
     

Share This Page

18 October 14, 2018