The U.S. Just Became a Net Oil Exporter for the First Time in 75 Years:
America turned into a net oil exporter last week, breaking almost 75 years of continued dependence on foreign oil and marking a pivotal -- even if likely brief -- moment toward what U.S. President Donald Trump has branded as "energy independence."
The shift to net exports is the dramatic result of an unprecedented boom in American oil production, with thousands of wells pumping from the Permian region of Texas and New Mexico to the Bakken in North Dakota to the Marcellus in Pennsylvania.
While the country has been heading in that direction for years, this week's dramatic shift came as data showed a sharp drop in imports and a jump in exports to a record high. Given the volatility in weekly data, the U.S. will likely remain a small net importer most of the time.
"We are becoming the dominant energy power in the world," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. "But, because the change is gradual over time, I don't think it's going to cause a huge revolution, but you do have to think that OPEC is going to have to take that into account when they think about cutting."
The shale revolution has transformed oil wildcatters into billionaires and the U.S. into the world's largest petroleum producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. The power of OPEC has been diminished, undercutting one of the major geopolitical forces of the last half century.
I can see short-term benefits (avoiding another 1973 Oil Crisis), but am concerned about the long-term strategy. Given a fixed supply of oil, isn't the US just racing to deplete its resources and therefore setting itself up for a later "oil crisis"? The only hope I see is a huge and continued emphasis in transitioning to alternative energy sources (be it solar, wind, and/or nuclear) and thus ween itself from dependence on foreign supplies.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @05:58PM (4 children)
Moving from Lithium to Fluorine doesn't seem like a great step on the "nasty to handle" scale, and if I infer correctly, a Lithium-Fluorine battery would be even better - energy density wise.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday December 10 2018, @06:37PM (3 children)
*Fluoride [soylentnews.org]
It's just one of many contenders. If it's not safe to crash an electric car filled with fluoride-ion batteries, or carry around a phone or laptop with it, then it probably won't be used, or will be restricted to certain applications.
Although it would be fun if we realized a 10x improvement in battery energy density and all consumer electronics became like bombs.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @08:36PM (2 children)
If you look back at the carbon (non-alkaline) batteries of the 1960s and leap forward to Li-Ion, I think it already looks like that.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:54PM (1 child)
TSA has been very cagey over people taking laptops onto planes in recent years. They have a procedure where you need to have your laptop out during the scan, and they can get even more suspicious if you have two laptops.
So if battery energy density was to suddenly go up by 10x, I can only imagine even more draconian measures. And I'll avoid them (hopefully) by taking a car or Greyhound instead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:30PM
TSA really sucked all the joy out of air travel - I'm very glad that we can do substantial telecommuting now.
🌻🌻 [google.com]