Video: Energy independence could be as easy as 1-2-3
posted at 2:05 pm on December 6, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Bet you’ll never guess which country is the world’s largest holder of natural gas, oil and coal resources combined. That’s right. This country. According to a report released today by the Institute for Energy Research, the United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves of oil — or more than the entire world has used in 150 years. That’s enough to fuel the United States for the next 250 years. Add natural gas and coal resources to that and we’re good to go for all the foreseeable future.
But, thanks to backward energy policies, we’re still dependent on foreign sources of oil. What is perhaps even worse — at least at a time of 8.6 percent unemployment — is that those backward energy policies that restrict access to our own resources also force us to forgo badly needed jobs. Research shows that reduced job creation — not increased layoffs — explains the high unemployment we have now. Here is a readymade way to create jobs, which, again, the president says is his top priority. In fact, the IER report shows we could create 1 million jobs just by (1) unlocking more federal lands, (2) developing shale resources and (3) eliminating excessive regulation.
Why, why, why is this controversial again? I understand that fossil fuels are nonrenewable and that people are properly concerned about the potential for their total depletion. But what good does it do to conserve them just to never use them? Or, better, why is it so hard to grasp that depletion is hundreds and hundreds of years away? Why not use the energy resources we do have, trusting the impending exigency of depletion to spur innovation and the probable development of an economically viable renewable energy source? Time and time again, technological innovation has enabled us to use oil and gasoline more efficiently and to access new reserves. Similarly, a creative and affordable fulfillment of the need for a renewable resource will emerge. In the meantime, we could be enjoying energy independence and an expanded job market.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Oh, good: Iranian hackers trying to break into the American energy grid
Reason: Will ObamaCare and patent attacks kill medical innovation?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Fracking A!!!!
HumpBot Salvation on April 29, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Seconded!
Scrumpy on April 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM
I want to know whether the electricity he used to write and send that email was generated by carbon-based fuels or not.
Is the founder of 350.org part of the solution, or part of the problem?
malclave on April 29, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Just a tip..
Don’t crawl out of your bedroom window and use the Natural Gas regulator as a stepping stool..
The sound of unleashed natural gas is deafening..
Electrongod on April 29, 2013 at 9:29 PM
Someone, pull my finger.
Axe on April 29, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Liquid salt thorium reactors and natural gas. The reasonable solution for long term energy production and use.
By the way, there’s been no ‘warming’ for the last 15 years. This has been the second coolest Spring on record. We’re at the tail end of a ‘warming period’ that occurred, quite naturally, after the last mini ice age ended and the planet returned to a more ‘normal’ temperature pattern.
thatsafactjack on April 29, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Mr. McKibbles typed out the email on his new laptop which was built using the latest in petroleum-derived plastics, chemical compounds, and electronic components which were produced in a modern factory.
Why can’t he use naturally derived computers like the Eskimos did, devices made of ice, wood, and vegetable fibers.
Bishop on April 29, 2013 at 9:36 PM
I reject the premise that theses ‘fuels’ come from fossilized remains.
Other than that, great work, Erika.
The “Green” movement has NEVER been about the environment, anyhow.
This may flush them out.
listens2glenn on April 29, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Well certainly not! This charming little mutt has a clear vision of Zion firmly fixed in his sight and he’ll never let any facts or new information of any sort blur it’s image.
“I know the truth, damn it. Don’t bother me with the facts!!!”
Lew on April 29, 2013 at 9:38 PM
.
‘YANK !‘
listens2glenn on April 29, 2013 at 9:39 PM
Not natural dood.
:-(
tom daschle concerned on April 29, 2013 at 9:39 PM
We all have that crazy uncle at the family reunion..
Axe..I joke..
:)
Electrongod on April 29, 2013 at 9:41 PM
Methane Hydrate…the next fossil fuel. Billions of tons of the stuff…in our oceans…deep down.
coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 9:45 PM
lol — and it would be you, wouldn’t it. :)
The joke was supposed to be implied.
– but all right.
Axe on April 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM
It is about time.
In Florida..we have a enormous Natural gas resources in the upper Panhandle/gulf. Years of NO. Even by the Right.
Tourism is #1 and anything that could harm our beaches is a no no.
But we have others drilling in the gulf and Cuba drilling right off Florida. One gets sick of this bullshite.
Florida is hurting real bad..I have been hoping things would change. More greenies from up north though and those voting Libby.
Our fishing ban on the east coast for red snapper and grouper-was won by Libs. Me and my dad throw back countless dead fish. Idiocy.
But I digress…
FL coming around?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/florida-lawmakers-lay-groundwork-for-natural-gas-f/nWkTk/
bazil9 on April 29, 2013 at 9:53 PM
Someone, pull my finger.
Axe on April 29, 2013 at 9:31 PM
No but I will frack it. ;)
bazil9 on April 29, 2013 at 9:54 PM
DOH! ba-da-bing. :)
Axe on April 29, 2013 at 9:57 PM
They wouldn’t care if it was the favorite food of their pet unicorns, reduced their grocery bills by 99%, and tucked them into bed at night, they would hate it because it comes from the earth, and oil companies and similar companies produce it.
Unless AlGore tells them that it is an approved substance, They would hate it even if they could get a nice high from sniffing it.
LegendHasIt on April 29, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Hot Gas, Baby!
Oh, yas.
locomotivebreath1901 on April 29, 2013 at 10:04 PM
bazil9 on April 29, 2013 at 9:54 PM
DOH! ba-da-bing. :)
Axe on April 29, 2013 at 9:57 PM
*symbol* ting!
LOL.
I am pumped up on salad.
bazil9 on April 29, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Okay Billy. You lead the way. Get naked and find a cave. We’ll get back to you.
GarandFan on April 29, 2013 at 10:10 PM
This article from the Atlantic, by way of Ace, illustrates the panic the ignorant Left is in at the prospect of technology making ever increasing amounts of oil and gas available: What If We Never Run Out of Oil?
Pull quote (to illustrate our writer’s cluelessness and eco-religious mindset; emphasis mine):
(Yes, son, you *are* an idiot. But the article is illuminating despite our hero’s abject fear of a natural-gas rich world.)
And, as to this:
I can help you out here on your finger pulling quest, with a statistic I learned 11 years ago: eight years of continuous screaming will generate enough energy to warm a cup of coffee, but eight years of farting will generate enough energy to equal a small nuclear blast.
Pull away, my friend, pull away!!!
Wanderlust on April 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM
I had the “pleasure” of listening to a old SF eco-queer at an energy conference in Perth a couple years ago, who berated the world over
global warmingclimate change and admonished us to do without air conditioning, as he waxed oh so eloquently about his trips to Africa and Indonesia to visit tribal peoples – who he claimed lived a wonderful, simple, uncluttered life, close to the Earth and free of dependence on things that harmed the environment.While he was talking, it was all I could do to keep my composure. I kept thinking about how he could leave that “simple” life at any time, he had easy access to first-world medical care at the push of a sat-phone button, and his visit to their “simple” life was uncluttered with an 18 hour/day pursuit of food, water, and shelter. I wanted to wring his neck lol.
On the anti air-conditioning thingy, of course he happened to live and work in one of the most temperate climates on the planet; he wouldn’t know what a 115°F day or a -40°F night was, unless someone rubbed his smug little puss in it.
Finally, he either ignored or refused to understand the utter hypocrisy of how his beliefs assmed that the “natives” would never want to choose to live a different life, one like the one he lived in (that is, where a person has instant access to clean water, abundant food, safe shelter, and first-rate medical care, all without having to spend all of his/her energies scraping together a meager existence every waking hour of the day), because it would never occur to him that they might actually want to make that choice for themselves.
GRRRR…
Wanderlust on April 29, 2013 at 10:28 PM
BTW aren’t carbon-based fuels “renewable” or has the Earth stopped making them?
PattyJ on April 29, 2013 at 10:32 PM
There is no reason to believe we will run out of petroleum, worldwide, at any time in the foreseeable future.
gryphon202 on April 29, 2013 at 10:38 PM
It is a probability that the ocean floor has burped or oozed far more oil and natural gas than man has any possibility of ever recovering, or has ever recovered…and yes, fossil fuels are renewable…the process did not stop, nor is it limited to deposits of ancient dinosaur dung and prehistoric forests.
So long as the earth’s crust remains in motion (plate tectonics) organic sediments will encounter pressure and heat…the origin of oil and gas.
We may run low on easy-to-recover fossil fuels….but with newer technologies coming on line…we can probe the less-easy-to-recover sources.
If, and a big if, the greenies do not get in the way.
coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 10:43 PM
I think it is reasonable to assume that with technological improvements and developments we will eventually move away from fossil fuels because either 1) their use for power will no longer be necessary or 2) their use for plastics would become more valuable. Alternately, fossil fuels, like oil could eventually go back to being some gooey, sticky, smelly liquid whose presence on land allowed scammers to foist oil containing property on unsuspecting boobs…
We won’t get there if we cripple the world’s technological development in some deliberate effort to stop use of fossil fuels when it is not economical to do so.
Russ808 on April 29, 2013 at 10:52 PM
Well see… now we are heading toward global cooling. So any reduction in the gases that AGW says are heating the earth up are actually dooming us. So Natural gas is bad. Unless we tax it. Heavily. But windmills stir the air and warm us so we should still hemorrhage all our cash on that sink hole. – The Wind lobby.
MechanicalBill on April 29, 2013 at 11:31 PM
But..but..but..CAPITALIST PIGDOGS!!!
eleventy!!111!!!!!!111
BigWyo on April 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM
This is just another example of why capitalism is good for the environment and the various forms of socialism are bad. Capitalists are always on the look-out for ways to maximize their profits and one of the easiest ways to do this is to cut down on waste byproduct (less waste output means less input is needed for the same amount of goods products) plus if you can collect your waste and then figure out a way to sell it to someone, you’ve just turned what was formally waste into a profit making product (I.E., you’ve just increased your output, profits and effeciencies). Socialism on the other hand is all about meeting government goals. If the Supreme Soviet said to produce 1,000 pairs of shoes at your factory each year you produced baby shoes, if it said to produce 1,000 pounds of shoes you produced clown shoes. But whatever you produced it was the one and only measure of your success. How much waste product you dumped in your back lot was simply immaterial to you and everyone else of importance. In fact, anything you did with your waste product took some of your limited resources away from your main and only goal of increasing production and so was considered a positive evil.
So, of course, methane leakages are decreasing. That’s money being frittered away as far as stock-holders are concerned.
And, of course, the global warming crowd is not satisfied. AGW was never about science or the environment. It’s a religion. And believers are not swayed by mere facts.
Fred 2 on April 30, 2013 at 1:26 AM
I really need to dig out the research paper I did in college, the one that mentions how even if we stopped all carbon emissions today (and this is assuming global warming is caused by greenhouse gases), global warming will continue unabated for hundreds of years into the future. Because of all the carbon we’ve already emitted over the centuries. Which basically means cutting emissions now is pointless, so we might as well not bother.
Scopper on April 30, 2013 at 1:41 AM
Gosh, it’s almost as if all their complaints about carbon emissions are just a pretext for a vast agenda to take economic control out of the hands of producers and consumers and put it instead into the hands of the nomenklatura.
Fabozz on April 30, 2013 at 3:05 AM
But nuclear is even cleaner, safer, and doesn’t pollute and its tiny same sized “waste” can be recyled into even more fuel! No wonder the fossil fuel industry is trying to bury nuclear!
Thanks atomicinsights.com
jamesgreenidge on April 30, 2013 at 3:43 AM
Sad news for human beings, liberals are even more stupid than we thought.
Mojave Mark on April 30, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Pretty much. Most of the left’s “causes” are just clubs to beat Republicans with. They are leftists first and environmentalist, anti-war, anti-sexist, whatever a very distant second. Once in a great while you get someone like Glenn Greenwald who seems to really believe in these causes, but people like him are very few and very far between.
Doomberg on April 30, 2013 at 7:10 AM
That’s easy enough to fix. Rewrite the report.
How careless of EPA to release it in the first place. EPA reports must advance the narrative.
EPA study cites report from admitted data fakers
petefrt on April 30, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Notice that the tighter “pollution” controls were instituted by the industry–which is in the business of capturing and selling methane to burn it, not release it into the air, so the industry has every incentive to prevent leaks!!!
Also, recent measurements have shown that while CO2 concentrations in the air continue to rise, methane concentrations have stabilized in recent years at about 1.7 ppm, meaning that any input from either man-made or natural methane emissions (swamps, stagnant water, etc.) is balanced by methane losses FROM the atmosphere.
Where is the methane going? It’s probably escaping out into space. At a given temperature, the velocity of gas molecules is inversely proportional to the square root of molecular weight. Methane has a molecular weight of 16, as compared to 28 for nitrogen, 32 for oxygen, and 44 for carbon dioxide. So methane molecules move faster than other gas molecules, migrate upward in the atmosphere, and eventually escape Earth’s gravity, while other gas molecules are slower and cannot escape Earth’s gravity.
Although methane absorbs about 20 times more infrared radiation than CO2 at the same concentration, the methane currently in the atmosphere is equivalent to about 34 ppm of CO2, but current CO2 concentrations are around 390 ppm, so that the net heat-trapping effect of methane is less than 1/10 that of CO2, which is itself much less than the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, which will always be in the atmosphere, since 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water.
Steve Z on April 30, 2013 at 10:06 AM
We choose ‘Bust’.
~Department of Energy Loan Officers
Dexter_Alarius on April 30, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Don’t forget hemp! You can make anything with that and smoke what you don’t use.
Odysseus on April 30, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Yes, of course, carbon based fuels are renewable!!
This whole anti-oil campaign shows the degradation of science by politics.
PattyJ on April 30, 2013 at 10:54 AM
‘Crash Diet’ in this conversation, would be an economic collapse severe enough to result in disruptions of power distribution.
That’s what Bill McKibbern is hoping for.
hawksruleva on April 30, 2013 at 11:45 AM
OK what are the byproducts of burning natural gas?
CO2 … bad … EPA says it is a pollutant.
(But it is FOOD for vegetation … otherwise known as plants)
But plants are green and green is good, right?
But plants make carbohydrates … I think they make you fat.
And Dihydrogenoxide … Ooooohh NO!
Google – Dihydrogenoxide to see how deadly THAT is.
Di-Hydrogen Oxide a.k.a H2O … known by the common name Water.
You can drown in water. Therefore it is Dangerous and we shouldn’t be creating any more water.
Missilengr on April 30, 2013 at 12:32 PM
The goal of the “enviro lobby”
Destroy America’s economy and therefore America.
Hard Right on April 30, 2013 at 3:25 PM