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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:55PM (27 children)
Since now America is the world's largest petroleum producer, where's my Basic Income like the OPEC countries pay because they're so rich?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:58PM (18 children)
They only pay that because they fear people would revolt; Americans are too docile.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:00PM (16 children)
You mean, Americans are too civilized. They have a lot more to lose misbehaving than 14th-century barbarians do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:14PM (15 children)
Civilized people are not social darwinists.
Civilized people don't let kids die of some disease because their parents made poor choices in life.
Civilized people don't support the death penalty.
Civilized people don't freely, willingly and knowingly choose mentally unstable, narcissitic, child-molesting psychopaths as their leaders.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:29PM (3 children)
Dafuq you talking about? Just put the crack pipe down, and step away from the keyboard. Oh, look, isn't that cute - you've got your online dictionary open to "civilized" and "social darwinists", but you didn't need to look up "child-molesting".
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @12:04AM (2 children)
Found the trumptard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @06:47AM (1 child)
"Trumptard" Wow, the stupid is strong with this one.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @07:49AM
Well sure, it's a tautology...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:45PM (4 children)
I have faith that even conservatives will eventually be domesticated and, finally, civilized. The "conservatism" that is found among the youth, people 18-25 or thereabouts, is scarcely even recognizable as conservatism when compared to the Boomer and Gen-X paroxysm of impotent nativist rage we've seen in the last few elections. The kids are alright.
The boomer/gen-x conservatism is dying out one suicide and drug overdose at a time. They're increasingly irrelevant, and they know it. The only reason they still win elections is because our Democratic Republic has some structural peculiarities which give them out-sized influence. We had to make a lot of compromises with the slavers to bootstrap the USA, and we're still dealing with the negative side-effects of that legacy.
Oh, and they cheat. They cheat A LOT. To a first approximation all electoral fraud in this country is done by the GOP. And since they lack shame as well as honor, they turn around and accuse the Democrats of voter-fraud; a statistically insignificant crime which has never changed the outcome of an election the USA.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @12:20AM
If we ever get socialized medicine, perhaps you will get the meds you need free of charge; I know that Milennials are The Brokest Generation.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @03:52AM
You misspelled Russian interference.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday December 10 2018, @08:06PM (1 child)
I assume you're referring to the totally false claim that the Democrats just show up in droves at polling places with people paid to pretend to be someone else and vote multiple times or something like that.
The GOP is smart enough, though, that when they commit election fraud, they do it via illegally manipulating absentee ballots [chicagotribune.com]. I've always considered absentee ballots to be one of the weakest parts of the election system: Nobody is ensuring that the absentee ballots are not coerced or sold, and there's nothing to ensure that an absentee ballot is not intercepted and altered between the person ostensibly casting the vote and that vote being counted. It's practically an invitation for shenanigans, and the only reason that the guy I just linked above got caught is that even the state Republicans thought it looked too fishy for comfort.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @10:45PM
I see you didn't mention Brenda Snipes. Manipulation of absentee and provisional ballots are her specialty. Destruction of ballots, missing deadlines, refusal to report numbers, refusal to admit observers, hiding/misplacing ballots. I'm pretty sure she's no GOP operative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @12:23AM (2 children)
Western civilization existed for hundreds of years with the death penalty, with psychopathic leaders, with kids dying by the thousands through parental choices and long before Darwin existed.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @02:37AM (1 child)
Good argument. People also lived for without a Constitution just fine for thousands of years. Time to scrap that garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @06:17AM
The US already did. It's just a piece of paper.
Western civilization has been around hundreds of years before the US existed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @06:32AM
Civilized people don't eat on the street.
Civilized people don't talk on the phone while eating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @01:51PM (1 child)
Why is this hyperbole nonsense deemed Insightful? Is this the Green Site?
Also look into Alfie Evans to see how your "Civilized" idea of a country treats sick children.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday December 10 2018, @07:45PM
It's one of the most tragic things in life to see a child suffer and die; the grief and desperation must, I'm sure, be unbearable for the parents. In the Alfie Evans case, the doctors were correct and placed the well-being of the patient ahead of the will of his distraught mother and father. Parents do not have an unlimited right to treat their children however they wish--sometimes the state steps in and prevents, or prescribes, some action. This is necessary and proper and a sign of a healthy society.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @12:24AM
Rank and file Saudis are pretty rank and revolting, even with basic income.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:09PM (2 children)
Unfortunately, America "forgot" to nationalize its oil.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @12:27AM (1 child)
America has been subsidizing oil production forever - how about we take some of that back now and reduce the general fund taxes?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @12:52AM
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:13PM (3 children)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
America is the world leader in Basic Income, but you are simply too poor (and therefore lazy and ugly) to experience it. In order to qualify, you need several million dollars, something like 20, and then you can start collecting with a shovel. You are probably confused, because the moochers call it "rent", "royalties", "stock options", "business-friendly tax rate", and many many other professional-sounding names, and behave as if they had a *man*date from haven to collect it (and according to some forms of x-tianity, they do). ~ 0x9932FE2729B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=QX6U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @01:55PM (1 child)
Plenty of poor people will remain poor no matter how much money you give them. I'm on my way to have someone evicted who bounced a check after signing a judgement of posession that hinged on her paying rent on time to avoid eviction. At the same time she had a diamond ring and Iphone 10 in the courtroom. Having her out on her ass, and her kids taken away form her and given to their father, who I never met (she claims he is awful) but going by how this woman acts he must be a saint, will be the Christmas present I deserve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:47AM
That's why you give them an education - a real and effective one, not the rote learning kind. Guess what, that costs money, which implies you nee to give money to help the poor, just not directly/literally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @01:35PM
How does adding a pgp sig help?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 10 2018, @02:50PM
Just because the OPECers have basic income doesn't mean the US will.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:59PM (5 children)
of change in mean ocean water temperature is the difference between having a nice day and cataclysm. From what I understand, we will all be dead before we pump it all. Strategically it is simple. We pump faster than they do, and soffocate everybody to death equally. That way we will get to put gold "winner" stars on our shirts before we go extinct.
Planetary resource economics has a longer fluctuation cycle than a human lifetime. That doesn't mean it doesn't crash or boom. It just means douchebag bankers and politicians can externalize their expenses to the environment and die before anybody has to pay the piper. The externalized expenses that economists call "tragedy of the commons" need to charged back on a depreciation basis, rather than as a lump sum (aka extiction).
Traditionally we have accomplished resource demand reductions with war and genocide. Though personally I prefer emissions trading. While there is abundant compelling information on this subject, the derth of it in public debate should not be regarded as accidental.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @01:04AM (4 children)
At present production levels, it'll be over a thousand years before we get to the point where outdoors CO2 poisoning is a normal thing (400 ppm and growing at less than 4 ppm per year versus lowest toxicity level of 5000 ppm). Maybe it's time for future generations to take some responsibility and stop this feeble pretense of thinking out a thousand years for people who can think for themselves.
We're already solve most of those resource problems. If resources get low enough that we actually need to recycle them, then recycle them.
War and genocide tends to increase consumption and population rather than decrease it because a) war tends to become the highest priority over everything else, including resource management, and b) everyone starts having more kids when they have good reason to expect a high death among their kids.
I get that you have trouble thinking about the future because of these eco-narratives you've taken on, but cut the crap. This is the best it's ever been for humanity and that is because of those processes which generate CO2 and consume resources.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @04:07AM (3 children)
"At present production levels, it'll be over a thousand years before we get to the point where outdoors CO2 poisoning"
A thousand years in relation to the evolution of our species, is not a long time. But it doesn't really matter. You don't have to suffocate mankind, just the fish. Which is what happens when water temperatures rise and oceans are unable to hold oxygen. And it isn't just CO2, it is also the sulfur dioxide from all the anerobic bacteria that is munching on the massive swaths of dead things in the ocean. The way the oil got there the last time, will be the way it gets there the next time.
But all of that is less of an emmediate issue than the related cascade failures in the food chain, which will probably precede CO2 poisoning by a long chalk. The last time this cycle troughed 90% of all species on the planet went extinct. The apex species, were by and large the ones that didn't make it.
"This is the best it's ever been for humanity"
As I said, longer cycles. Maybe it is. But is of no consequence since it is the mean of the overall cycle that matters.
"feeble pretense of thinking out a thousand years for people who can think for themselves."
In an economic bubble the falling slopes are steeper than the rising slopes. What you're saying is that people who are suffering less resources per capita than we have now, will be more able to address the problem.
This is a conservation of energy problem. There is no technology that is going to change the laws of physics. More to the point, you're ignoring the rollout time for workable solutions. When you're talking about environmental engineering, the solutions that most leverage biology (the cheapest) have the longest rollout times. And that isn't taking into account that dwindling resources generally cause wars, which accelerates the rate of decline.
IOW, you can't build long term solutions if you don't have a long term. And you're not going to be aware that you only have a short term, until you are past the point of no return.
But I get your point. I got a 12 pack of natty light, a box of camels, and a TV. Fuck the human race.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @09:32AM
But that is years away. The only thing that matters is next quarter's results. With an oil well in Texas the size of mine, In 3 years time, I'll be richer than Croesus.
--
Scrooge McDuck
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @03:25PM (1 child)
It's only longer than the few million years to date. Evolution is relative. We're evolving (not just in a genetic sense) at a vastly faster rate than we ever have.
You already stated how much that has to happen.
Longer cycles don't matter. My view is that we'll have solved this problem when it actually becomes a problem.
Completely irrelevant. And not actually true - for example, the latest Bitcoin burst has a shallow slope on its decline than it did on the rise.
Again completely irrelevant since Earth is an open system. No law of physics states that a) we need to continue to use fossil fuels to be point of extinction, or b) that subsequent generations will be dumber than rocks and require us to do all the thinking for them. Nor do those laws of physics prevent the sun from shining for a billion more years.
My point exactly. You're thinking short term, worrying about the latest environmental fad. OTOH, I've been proposing long term solutions all along. Let us keep in mind that there's a lot more than one single problem in the world, and as a result climate change is pretty far down the list of problems humanity faces. Where in your thought process is room for poverty, overpopulation, corruption, habitat destruction, resource mismanagement, and war.
Sure, if we had a magic wand and could automatically fix CO2 levels at a given level without cost, then sure, that would probably help all those bigger problems. But the real world isn't like that. While there are some low-lying fruit, as a whole climate change mitigation has ended up being costly and ineffective with remarkably little thought given to the consequences and little progress to show for it. Actually think about the future sometime.
This is a typical scam line. You're projecting well down the road, and then claiming that we won't see the end coming until "it's too late". It rushes the mark into making foolish decisions. My view is that you need to show evidence for your claims. If you can't, tough. I'm not going to squander the future of humanity, just because there are Chicken Littles in the audience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:50AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:00PM (4 children)
Yes, that is exactly the goal.
The oil companies know full well that climate change is real, and a problem. However, they've spent billions on buying up the right to take oil out of the ground, those rights are a large percentage of their assets, and if they are unable to pump that oil out they're screwed big time. Their business strategy, therefor, has consisted of 3 things:
1. Lobbying campaigns to keep the US government and many other governments from taking substantial action to prevent climate change, which would probably involve them leaving some of their oil in the ground.
2. Public disinformation campaigns to keep the public in democratic countries from voting to make the government take substantial action to prevent climate change.
3. Pump out all the oil as quickly as they possibly can, using whatever means they can.
Their behavior is basically identical to a group of miscreants who smash in a store window and are trying to grab as much as they can before the cops arrive.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday December 10 2018, @12:45AM (3 children)
The problem with your argument is technology. 10 years ago we couldn't frack our way out of a paper bag. Now fracking has turned us into the #1 exporter.
What your talking about is basically market timing. You have a huge infusion of stuff. Stuff may or may not be worthless in x years. Closer you get to x the more you get for your stuff. Do you put as much stuff to market as you can as fast as you can? Or hoard your stuff, hoping to guess how close to x you can get before your stuff becomes worthless?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday December 10 2018, @10:47AM
> Now fracking has turned us into the #1 exporter.
No. Now US is almost export/import neutral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @05:41PM
Not quite that simple. The basic process and technology of hydraulic fracturing hasn't substantially changed in the last ten years. What improved was some of the technology used down-hole, allowing fracturing to become vastly cheaper in terms of time and man-hours required.
Ten years ago, fracturing ten different 'zones' in a single well could easily take over a month, requiring multiple visits by both a service rig and the frac company. Now, it can be done in less than 24 hours, with two service rig visits and one visit by the frac guys. Depending on the tech used, they may not even need the service rig, just a coiled tubing truck.
It's not that we're fracturing paper bags any better than we used to, it's that we're doing a lot more, for a lot less.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 11 2018, @12:42AM
You seem to be confusing global climate change regulation with peak oil. The fear is not that the crude oil will run out and thus become really expensive, it's that crude oil will be awash in the market but it will be illegal to sell all of it. So they're selling it now, while they can.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:08PM (27 children)
If the world mostly stops using oil within the next 50-100 years or so, any remaining reserves will be wasted.
It would be prudent to excavate and sell it now, rather than waiting for a post-oil economy. Then you can reinvest in other areas.
Saudi Arabia is a great example of this. But they threw a bone saw into the works.
Global warming isn't a concern in this scenario, because as long as there is demand it will get drilled. You could invest in batteries, solar, and fusion to help bring the post-oil economy sooner.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:21PM (10 children)
Oil will still be needed for many applications; plastic and fertilizers come to mind first.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:54PM (3 children)
Oils for plastics and such don't necessarily need to come from dead dinosaurs. That just happens to be an already available and relatively inexpensive source.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:27PM (2 children)
Perhaps, but I wonder if it will be more environment friendly. So far any alternative to oil is either questionable or outright more dangerous than oil.
I am also very suspicious about the strategy. See, an honest way would be to implement better than oil alternatives and only then remove oil from the picture. But it is not the strategy. They are trying to prohibit oil or make it more expensive using taxes and promise that alternatives will come and will be better. I call it BS, sorry.
Note that it's everywhere. Old ways don't die because they are worse but because they are legislated out of existence. Perhaps it is good. If so we got to be honest at least to ourselves, but people prefer propaganda.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 10 2018, @03:38AM (1 child)
Nah, there are plenty of oils produced as byproducts of agriculture that could serve a new purpose. It's not like we're going to cut back on raising food any time soon. If all else fails, there's always mandatory liposuction for the obese. Better health and raw materials with one stone!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 10 2018, @05:54PM
If it's a one-time thing, carving is more efficient than liposuction.
If you want to make it a permanent resource, we need to invent an implantable faucet system to simplify logistics.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:18PM (5 children)
I think we should be making a lot of plastics from plant material. Fertilizers are made from methane [forbes.com], and not oil.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:32PM (3 children)
I assumed that when people say oil what they really mean is hydrocarbons from fossils. BTW, even the last part - fossils - is controversial.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zinho on Monday December 10 2018, @08:40AM (2 children)
What's the controversy? No one is claiming that we're pumping oil out of dinosaur-shaped holes in the ground. The best theory about the fuel's origin is that it was produced by the microorganisms that are invariably found in source rock. Yes, microbes left behind fossils, and they can be easily identified in rock cuttings under a microscope. All that's beside the actual point; the fuel itself is the fossil. Regardless of what made it, the fuel itself is the geologic evidence of the process that created it.
fossil [merriam-webster.com]
fos·​sil | \ˈfä-səl
adjective
1 : preserved from a past geologic age
//fossil plants
//fossil water in an underground reservoir
noun
1 : a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust
Unless you're somehow arguing that fossil fuel isn't preserved from a past geologic age I'm not seeing where there's room for controversy here.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @07:37PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday December 10 2018, @10:53PM
This just came out today https://phys.org/news/2018-12-life-deep-earth-totals-billion.html [phys.org]
15 to 23 billion tons of living carbon in deep earth. The bugs have life span in millions of years, very diverse, but persist everywhere.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @05:47PM
Worth noting that pretty much any hydrocarbon chain you care to name can be created starting with syngas as the base building block (ie, methane). The cost gets pretty obscene the longer and more exotic the chain you're trying to make, but it can be done. When the oil is gone, we'll pay that cost or do without. Really is that simple.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @12:33AM (15 children)
Oil reserves are not wasted. Saving them for 1000 years or more is not wasting them, it's not even noticeable in the larger geological timeframe they have been accumulating.
Civilization has been building cities for 5000 years, just because we set aside a resource for longer than the current age of the US constitution does not mean it is wasted.
If you're thinking in terms of the remaining lifespan of the people in power, sure, but any of them who are deluded enough to think that their personal fortunes for their remaining decade or three of life should matter more than the future of the planet should be sent to Vegas to do hookers and blow for the rest of their natural life, and get them the hell away from making decisions that affect future generations.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday December 10 2018, @01:00AM (7 children)
Ideally, the people of 100-1,000+ years from now will not be using much oil (outside of small, niche uses not comparable to today's consumption numbers). If they are using oil, it better be because of a post-apocalypse scenario.
Perhaps it would be better for humanity if it was sent back to the Dark Ages, but without cheap, easy-to-locate-and-exploit petroleum resources. Or maybe it would just be a different flavor of bad. But without a massive catastrophe, our civilization should reach a point where it leaves oil in the ground and uses mostly batteries, or maybe hydrogen cells, etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @02:44AM (6 children)
I agree that the future of oil is niche, extremely small as compared to the last 50-100 years.
I disagree about batteries - almost as bad IMO, I do hope they (in their current form, at least) are even shorter lived than the internal combustion engine.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday December 10 2018, @03:26AM (5 children)
Umm, everyone here has seen dozens of stories [sciencedaily.com] about new battery technologies being worked on by researchers. It seems likely that one or more of these will eventually pan out and batteries will not remain in their current form in the coming decades and centuries.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(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]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @01:15AM (6 children)
And I see you ignore economic time value [wikipedia.org] here. Yes, it is wasting those resources. There is nothing we'd be using those resources for in a thousand years, especially when adjusted for sitting on the resource for a thousand years (and moving on to non-fossil fuel resources as well), that is more valuable than what we could do with it now.
Remember the benefits and wealth of our societies accumulate over that thousand year period too. If we accumulate many such poor decisions as forgoing a valuable resource for some purely imaginary future benefit a thousand years from now, then what sort of impoverished society will we have left in a thousand years?
You're the only one displaying a hugely flawed understanding of the future beyond that remaining lifespan.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @02:48AM (5 children)
Nowhere in this thesis is there value assigned to persons not yet born, nor the value of ecosystems which are fundamental to the survival of all people. If that is not viewed as fundamentally flawed, then the future is doomed.
But, what do you care? You'll be dead.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @03:37PM (4 children)
There are two flaws in your claim. First, there's no point to making things worse now so that we can have a worse future as well. Way too many of the climate change fixes make high fertility people poorer now. That means more people in a worse future later. Meanwhile what we save now by not pursuing harmful and counterproductive climate change mitigation strategies goes to making a better future. Second, time value works beautifully for the very things you speak of. Assign value to these future things and you still have time value.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @05:55PM (3 children)
Name your fallacy: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/ [thebestschools.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 10 2018, @07:33PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @08:43PM (1 child)
Prescient, are we?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 11 2018, @02:48AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:19PM
Beavers are natures agents of restoring balance to ecosystems: )https://permaculturemag.org/2018/01/beavers/). The beavers are attempting to the permafrost to release enough methane to triple the atmospheric greenhouse effect (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/beavers-accelerate-thawing-arctic-s-permafrost)
The beavers have magnetite in their brains that allows them to sense the sun 's changing magnetic fields, and the elders remember the last solar cycle was weak and cycle 25 is looking weak too. They are working hard to save the climate from another ice age.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:20PM (4 children)
https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/ [eia.gov]
They keep finding oil and gas. We have more reserves today, after a hundred years of burning the stuff, than we had when we started. Make of that what you will.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:25PM (1 child)
But doesn't the consumption doubles every 50 years or so? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/world-oil-use-100-million-barrels-rising-global-warming-a8565281.html [independent.co.uk]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 10 2018, @02:56PM
Politicians don't need to worry about Climate Change, or the National Debt, or the Environment, or Biological Diversity or other such problems. They will have raked in lobbyist money, and will be out of office raking in even more money for having ever been in office.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @12:35AM (1 child)
Just like they keep finding new species... we are small, the world is big, but we are screwing it over faster than we are discovering it.
We passed this point [half-earthproject.org] long ago, and we need to go back if we're going to survive long-term.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @01:33PM
This is part of the reason why china is building islands in the sea to claim territory. They have found oil reserves there.
Of course when they build multi million dollar oil rigs to extract the oil from the territory they illegally built on it will be blow up but that is a different problem
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:24PM (4 children)
After the oil has ran out, the US will be left hopelessly behind in the field of alternative energies, waging even more wars to get the last of the oil elsewhere cheaply.
The US should be spearheading a space-race-level effort to make nuclear fusion power a reality before it's too late. But no, instead it prefers to dig itself deeper into its hopeless the hole. And the rest of the world gets delayed on that particular task also because of the sudden influx of cheap oil on the market. Sheesh...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:01PM (2 children)
This is where the useful idiots show a bit of usefulness. They've been Chicken Little-ing for a long time now and investments have been being made for decades so that you can now buy a fully electric vehicle if you so choose. In general, it's a good rule of thumb to pay attention to what the Chicken Littles are going on about. It's never as drastic and immediate a problem as they say, so it gives you plenty of time to avoid any serious inconvenience.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @11:41PM (1 child)
It is like pulling teeth watching the fools slowly wise up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 11 2018, @03:53AM
You're still a hysterical idiot if the sky isn't actually falling when you say it is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @03:27AM
Isn't this the ultimate strategy? Overpower the rest of the planet and force them to hand over whatever natural resources we may be lacking? /s
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:37PM
This is fracking fantastic!
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday December 10 2018, @12:06AM (1 child)
Oh, we export oil? Umm... we invaded for.. um.. the PATRIARCHY!
Anyway, as much as I like the idea of nuclear powered cars, forcing their development without a demand for them, is a setup for failure. The market will naturally push development of alternatives when oil scarcity begins. It's not like society is a car running on fumes. We wont instantly run out and be stuck on the side of the road. It's more gradual, like a a dimming flashlight or "climate change." If big oil based companies fail because they did not diversify, we will be better off without them. More market for innovative ones. Only way I can see this being a hard failure is if we create a socialist future where we publicly fund and unionize, trying to preserve failing companies for the jobs.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @12:41AM
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/solar-power-technologies-and-policies.html [ucsusa.org]
http://energy.mit.edu/news/the-future-of-solar-energy-a-summary-and-recommendations-for-policymakers/ [mit.edu]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @04:45PM (1 child)
Then why is my gas price going up and still tied to opec?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday December 10 2018, @06:03PM
Because the people controlling oil flows like money.
Because oil is a highly fungible commodity with a world-wide market.
Because your asshole neighbor drives a V8 60 miles a day just because they are cool.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday December 10 2018, @10:09PM
Are we sure that was dependence or maybe it was cherry picking on 'cheapest' easiest to get foreign oil. When it becomes truly critical there will be domestic oil in the US for use.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge