Energy Independence

[Richard Nixon]

I am opposed to importing oil from the Middle East, I'm assuming you're too. So why not do this: get rid of restrictions on offshore drilling and ANWR which the majority of Americans would support, and revive nuclear energy and start building them. That would create jobs to end the recession and give the US energy independence. So would the Party for Socialism and Liberation support that stance.

[ComradeOm]

I am opposed to importing oil from the Middle East, I'm assuming you're tooWhat happens when you assume? You make an ass out of you and me

Why exactly should I be opposed to importing oil from the Middle East? Should I also be opposed to using Norwegian oil, Russian gas, or Japanese cars? I think you've confused socialists for economic nationalists. Autarky is an impossibility in this day and age

[GPDP]

Energy independence is nationalistic bullshit. Not only is it impractical in the modern globalized world, but it is also reactionary as fuck.

As internationalists, we are for energy co-dependence. The resources of the earth belong to all of mankind, not to specific countries for them to use at their own exclusive leisure.

[ArrowLance]

I also don't see why we should try to become energy independent. It seems like you would be perfectly happy to stop importing completely, I really don't see the difference between 'energy' and other goods.

[Richard Nixon]

Energy is a strategic resource and currently the holders of energy are mainly reactionary fucks like the House of Saud or the Islamist Iran regime.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The problem is, all oil companies are run by reactionary fucks (even more so than your average company), so using oil from some place other than Saudi Arabia or Iran would only succeed in shifting money from one group of reactionary fucks to another.

Developing nuclear energy, on the other hand, is indeed a good idea - not because of "energy independence" or any other such nationalistic nonsense, but because nuclear energy is cleaner, safer, and sooner or later we'll have to rely on it anyway. Fossil fuels are going to run out, and there is no way that renewables can ever meet current energy needs (let alone future ones). Nuclear is the only way to go, so we might as well start now.

[Dust Bunnies]

I want an end to oil not because I love the US or any bullshit but because it leads to a cleaner environment. We have one environment and I don't want some reactionaries and Capitalists ruining it. Also it creates jobs which means less poverty. I want to help the proletariat in the current limbo state between the rise and fall of Capitalism.

[cb9's_unity]

Drilling for oil is something that must be curbed, not expanded. The lengthy time it would take to start oil drilling of the coast or anywhere else is time that could be better spent working on wind, solar, hydrogen, or even nuclear infrastructure.

Why spend all that time creating drilling rigs and refineries to get dirty energy in 10 years when we could start throwing together windmills to get clean renewable energy now?

[Demogorgon]

The problem is, all oil companies are run by reactionary fucks (even more so than your average company), so using oil from some place other than Saudi Arabia or Iran would only succeed in shifting money from one group of reactionary fucks to another.

Developing nuclear energy, on the other hand, is indeed a good idea - not because of "energy independence" or any other such nationalistic nonsense, but because nuclear energy is cleaner, safer, and sooner or later we'll have to rely on it anyway. Fossil fuels are going to run out, and there is no way that renewables can ever meet current energy needs (let alone future ones). Nuclear is the only way to go, so we might as well start now.
That is hardly the case the world over. In this country for instance, we have the capacity to completely cover our energy needs with wind power. Compared with our Nuclear plants, some of which have been leaking for years, that is definitely preferable.

The potential for renewable energy is very good in a lot of places as it happens. It could well be feasible to turn deserts into solar energy "farms". It would be expensive to set up, but it would reap considerable long term rewards. If you did that extensively in Northern Africa, you could net a lot of energy.

[Robert]

In this country for instance, we have the capacity to completely cover our energy needs with wind power.

Including home heating, air conditioning, and automobile propulsion? I guess you don't need much air conditioning in Scotland.

[Demogorgon]

Including home heating, air conditioning, and automobile propulsion? I guess you don't need much air conditioning in Scotland.
Houses don't normally have air conditioners here, for the same reason you don't put on a thick jumper and woolly hat to explore tropical jungles. Although for the past week or so it has been unusually hot here.

And yes, we are likely to be able to meet the needs of the power grid through wind power. The plan is huge wind farms off the coast where the winds are very strong. It is all a bit of a political football right now of course because the SNP Scottish Government wants to use them very much and the Labour London Government wants more Nuclear power and as such is less enthusiastic. So the issue is very charged (sorry).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The reason why I tend to be skeptical about renewables is because the amount of energy that may be generated from them per unit of time (and/or unit of area, especially in the case of solar power) is finite. With nuclear power, on the other hand - at least if we get a working fusion reactor - there are essentially no limits to how much energy we can generate, and therefore no limits to how much energy we can consume.

[CommunityBeliever]

Get rid of restrictions on offshore drilling and ANWR which the majority of Americans would support

Well I do not support that for a number of reasons:

1. The oil from that area is a finite resource.
2. That is not exactly good for the environment.
3. Oil from that area is no better then oil from any other area.


and revive nuclear energy and start building them.

Well I do not really support that either because nuclear power is not really a renewable resource. I would prefer solar power.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060904084911AA2EJtp



That would create jobs to end the recession and give the US energy independence.

What I would much rather prefer is that people took up the job of putting solar panels on their home so that they power their home purely on solar energy which could save 35% of the oil we use right there and the solar panels do not run out.

The next major sector is transportation and I think we could hopefully save maybe half of that by making more people use bicycles and encouraging more people to use Buses.

I think that if we do that we can save maybe half of our oil expenditures and that means we can save that oil on agriculture because when food stops being produced that is when people really suffer. Also if we save on oil like this we can hopefully get rid of Biofuels because Biofuels are such a waste of food when people are starving out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJb7o3-lXWY

The above documentary shows how the agricultural industry is the first and most major industry to be hit by the peak oil crisis so I think we should focus on saving the agricultural industry and on eliminating Biofuels.

[Richard Nixon]

Well I do not support that for a number of reasons:

1. The oil from that area is a finite resource.
2. That is not exactly good for the environment.
3. Oil from that area is no better then oil from any other area.



Yes it's a finite resource but it can be used for sometime until we can make renewable sources feasible on a vast scale. Also this will mean cheaper oil prices for all and the creation of several thousand jobs. Finally this would be the will of the people as the majority of Americans support it.


Well I do not really support that either because nuclear power is not really a renewable resource. I would prefer solar power.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060904084911AA2EJtp




The best answer stated that nuclear power could be renewable and be used until we develop fusion power.


What I would much rather prefer is that people took up the job of putting solar panels on their home so that they power their home purely on solar energy which could save 35% of the oil we use right there and the solar panels do not run out.

The next major sector is transportation and I think we could hopefully save maybe half of that by making more people use bicycles and encouraging more people to use Buses.


However the bus system is inconvenient for people say in my local area in the OC who commute to Downtown LA: get off Bus A, get on Bus B, then stop at Stop C to get Bus D and etc.



I think that if we do that we can save maybe half of our oil expenditures and that means we can save that oil on agriculture because when food stops being produced that is when people really suffer. Also if we save on oil like this we can hopefully get rid of Biofuels because Biofuels are such a waste of food when people are starving out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJb7o3-lXWY

The above documentary shows how the agricultural industry is the first and most major industry to be hit by the peak oil crisis so I think we should focus on saving the agricultural industry and on eliminating Biofuels.

Totally agree with you on this point.

[Kassad]

Sorry I'm a little late, but I feel that this issue needs some serious clarification.

First of all, under capitalism, the energy market, broadly speaking, is completely dominated by corporate powerhouses. Before the current economic crisis decimated the automobile market, the production of motor vehicles and other related productions was one of the largest markets in the United States. Because of the immense control the automobile industry held and still holds today, government leaders like George W. Bush consistently propagated the notion that such large corporate sectors were 'too big to fail', meaning that they were such a massive part of economic production that if they failed, the economy would likely plummet with them. This is what happens when you deregulate entire sectors of the market. Any corporate sector that is not used for the benefit of the people entirely will grow to an extent that they are like a bus that slams someone against a tree but keeps them alive, and if you remove the bus, the person dies. Keep that in mind.

So with the automobile industry's incredible influence in the economic prosperity of the United States, they have the ability to force the people, notably the proletariat, to do their general bidding. This is basically a form of hegemonic domination. So these companies, which are developed for private profit as opposed to communal development and good, what these corporations want, they get. These corporations want to make money, so they will do everything they can to make money without having to spend money on efficiency and other areas, since they reduce profit margins. So when alternative forms of energy are produced, will the automobile industries modernize and spend billions and more to have more fuel efficiency and different forms of alternative energy?

Of course not. These industries want to profit and updating their system of production would be very costly. So the automobile companies, along with all other corporate sectors with some form of hegemonic control, attempt to avoid efficiency. This is an example of why the profit system makes it possible and common for products to be made cheaply and less efficiently, despite potential factors that harm consumers, in the hunt for more profits.

So the 'drill here, drill now' notion is completely irrelevant, since the necessity for these environmentally detrimental practices is a symptom of the larger capitalist disease. Capitalism creates a profit motive, which in the search for more profits, often reduces quality of consumer products. So to make up for the failures of capitalism, imperialist exploitation becomes necessary to sustain the destructive nature of the capitalist system. Instead of investing in outdated and environmentally destructive energy sources, we should be putting the needs of the people first and promoting other energy sources that would modernize the economy.

Unfortunately, this kind of system is unfeasible, as it would merely be an extention and appeasement of capitalism to bandage its broken wounds. Capitalism is inherently destructive and the profit motives it creates will always benefit an elite, as opposed to the community. The only solution is a socialist revolution that harnesses the economic sectors of society to benefit the working class, as opposed to the corporate oligarchy.

So no, the Party for Socialism and Liberation doesn't support this kind of motive, because we realize that the 'drill, drill, drill' notion is merely another destructive necessity to sustain capitalism. Under a planned socialist economy, quality and the distribution of products and wealth communally would be prioritized, as opposed to the search for more profits.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, new and innovative technologies can solve this problem forever. What we want is cheap electricity. How? By using an endless source like atmospheric heat. How? See below.
The Sun may set, but the residue of its radiation remained as heat in the atmosphere and into the oceans of our planet. By extracting atmospheric heat and converting that into electricity, we can produce as much electricity as we need. A very effective way of extracting atmospheric heat is vacuum evaporation of water withe the help from a vacuum pump in a metallic container. During evaporation, the evaporated water collects its latent heat of vaporization from the leftover water and it becomes colder. But, heat from outside atmosphere will enter into the colder water inside from warmer atmosphere. After sometime, an equilibrium can be reached when the amount of heat entering into the container from external atmosphere will be equal to the amount of latent heat necessary to evaporate the amount of water, that is evaporated. IN EXPERIMENTS OF OPEN-CYCLE OTEC, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT TO GET A 1 KG/SEC FLOW OF VAPOR, JUST 3 KW IS ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE VACUUM PUMP. WHILE THE AMOUNT OF HEAT EMBEDDED IN THE 1 KG/SEC VAPOR FLOW IS 2.31 MW.
In the next phase, we just have to heat the vapor with solar reflector panels. By this process, we can get rid of supplying the latent heat of vaporization of water by the solar collectors, which is 2/3rd of the amount of heat embedded in the hot steam necessary to produce electricity.
The process described above can be improved and the electricity produced will be really cheaper than any other method. With this cheap electricity, we can produce hydrogen that can be used as fuel. Chemically, we can also produce fuel by combining hydrogen and carbon-di-oxide, hydrogen can be produced by electrolyzing water and carbon-di-oxide can be extracted from atmosphere. These together can be chemically combined to produce liquid fuel that can act just like fossil fuel. What is necessary for that is cheap electricity, far cheaper than today. That can be done only with new innovative technologies.

[danyboy27]

the world need cold fusion or some answome shit like that.

but i agree with the majority here, its impossible for america to become self suficent.

[pranabjyoti]

The world don't need cold fusion or some kind of fuzzy futuristic technologies. Technologies that can serve the humanity is very close, but most of us are unable to see that.

[revolt4thewin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3QT1MFYcmo&feature=fvw
The future of energy independence.

[pranabjyoti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3QT1MFYcmo&feature=fvw
The future of energy independence.
Certainly not that. There are other ways.