Posted on 12/18/2003 1:51:33 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
The US Energy Department on Tuesday said that US dependence on foreign oil would increase at a faster pace than the government had previously forecast.
The latest estimates are unwelcome news for the Bush administration, which has prioritised reducing US reliance on foreign energy.
Net oil imports are expected to rise to 70 per cent of total US petroleum demand by 2025, according to the department.
The new Annual Energy Outlook 2004 report says the US is being forced to increase oil imports to accommodate growing demand amid declining domestic supply. In 2002, net imports of oil were 54 per cent.
In Congress, Republicans have completed work on a comprehensive energy bill that the administration says would help alleviate the growing dependence on overseas energy.
The House of Representatives passed the legislation last month but it has stalled in the Senate after several Republicans sided with the Democrats to block the bill from coming to a vote.
According to the report, US energy demand would increase by an annual average of 1.5 per cent through to 2025.
The report expects electric generation to rely increasingly on coal for fuel.
By 2025 the share of coal in electric generation would have increased from the current 50 per cent to 54 per cent. The relatively low cost of fossil-fired generation is also expected to discourage the development of renewable technologies, the report says.
At the same time the report says natural gas demand would decline while prices are expected to rise.
Total US natural gas supply is expected to grow to 31,300bn cubic feet in 2025. Domestic production of natural gas is forecast to rise by over a quarter to 24,100bn cubic feet by 2025.
The Energy Department projects that carbon dioxide emissions would increase by an annual 1.5 per cent to 2025, when they would reach more than 8bn tons.
But carbon intensity, which measures emissions against economic growth, is expected to decline by 1.5 per cent in the same period.
The administration has come under fire from environmental groups for not being more aggressive in tackling rising emissions of carbon dioxide, which many scientists think are partly to blame for rising temperatures worldwide.
I'm not referring to 2000 data, I'm referring to the Weekly Petroleum Status Report, published today
I just did the calculation. Official result is 33.9% now
or better said, considering the title of this thread : 66.1%
Now note this is based on official oil imports of 9,592 bpd ...
LOL! I'm glad I came back to look at the full thread!
When I saw the 33.9 on the "My Comments" page, I knew something HAD to be wrong!
WE need to drill for our own oil.
Low prices
Any analysis of trends that doesn't take prices into account won't work. There has been underinvestment in US production for almost two decades because of low prices. This will change I think - there is pressure on current supplies due to continuing increases in third world demand.
Irrelevant. Oil is a fungible commodity. We consume more than we produce at current market prices. Nothing can be done about that.
My solution is nukes. Many many nukes. One proven, simple design everywhere. If the greens protest, cut off their electricity and heat.
Not true.
Crude oil is produced in a widely complex variety of grades ranging from "light" to "heavy" and "sweet" to "sour" (depending on sulfur content.) In turn, this dictates a wide variety of refinery designs to produce the myriad distillates and petro-chemicals we consume. Just because these technical details are beyond the training of average citizens is no reason to insult them with the oversimplistic claim that "oil is a fungible commodity".
My solution is nukes. Many many nukes. One proven, simple design everywhere.
I agree that we need to build more nukes.
But once again you oversimplify the solution.
There certainly may be only a few designs that predominate for the bulk of our electrical generating capacity. (At least until the next generation of reactors are developed). But there is also a need for other reactor designs to reprocess and recycle nuclear fuel as well as to dispose of nuclear wastes.
Good old Jimmuh Carter -- the peanut -- He predicted the world would be out of oil, all gone, kaput, by the year 2,000.
Who's doing the insulting, Willie? Google up "oil fungible commodity" and see who agrees with me. Just because it comes in different grades does not bar it from being fungible within those grades. I'm not sure you even understand the term fungible.
But once again you oversimplify the solution. There certainly may be only a few designs that predominate for the bulk of our electrical generating capacity. (At least until the next generation of reactors are developed). But there is also a need for other reactor designs to reprocess and recycle nuclear fuel as well as to dispose of nuclear wastes.
For heaven's sake, Willie, you're laying on the pedantry pretty thick. This post was not intended to be a dissertation or even a feature article on oil or nuclear power.
I'm talking about unifying the design of nuclear power generating reactors so that parts and expertise are more unified and more portable. Implying that such a statement is meant to prohibit reprocessing and disposal is disingenuous sophistry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.