Energy in America

[bearcat22]

Premises:

World wide energy consumption is rising rapidly and will continue to do so;

Energy distribution infrastructure upgrades are not keeping pace with increasing demand;

Imported fuels have net negative economic effects to the American economy;

Energy has a strong impact upon American political policy

Imported fuels make America vulnerable to unstable world politics

Energy producers wield too much influence over government energy policy

Given those premises being accepted, questions:

If there were no government subsidies, which method of generating electricity on a wide scale would be most practical?

By practical, I mean produce the greatest net gain, taking into consideration:

Efficiency

Distribution / transmission from source to use

Overall long and short term pollution

Profitability

Fuel Independence (fuel harvested inside America, not imported)

Sustainability

Speed and simplicity of building more supply of that type of power source

&&&&

Feel free to also comment on:

OPEC embargos

Economic collapse of Venezuela due to over reliance on oil exports

Corn/Ethanol and American elections

Brazil burning sugar instead of gasoline in vehicles

Exxon Valdez

Enron

Military budget to protect foreign oil supply

French vs German nuclear power policy

Ukraine:  lithium, uranium and billions in military aid

Defeat of consumer owned power plants, such as Pine Tree initiative in Maine

Solar power harvesting satellites and transmission loss

Fracking and rapidly diminishing fresh water supply in America

Carbon offset market

Bringing things to people, instead of an economy designed around each person having to pay for their own vehicle to chase things; arcologies

The book:  $20 per Gallon

Strategic energy reserves held by Federal Government

Railroads vs. Trucks

Home waste  digesters to make methane for fuel

&&&&&&&&&

Could nuclear power plants be located far enough from population that a radiation leak would be insignificant?

Store the waste right next to the remotely located power plant?

  Instead of power cables, which have transmission loss over distance, charge huge batteries instead, shipping these batteries via a railway supply loop from plant to end use location, returning to be recharged when depleted.

&&&&&&&&&&&

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

19 hours ago, bearcat22 said:

Premises:

World wide energy consumption is rising rapidly and will continue to do so;

Energy distribution infrastructure upgrades are not keeping pace with increasing demand;

Imported fuels have net negative economic effects to the American economy;

Energy has a strong impact upon American political policy

Imported fuels make America vulnerable to unstable world politics

Energy producers wield too much influence over government energy policy

Given those premises being accepted

!

Moderator Note

Those are statements of a factual nature, which need to be supported before this continues

“rising rapidly” is vague; it’s a number that can be quantified. Details matter.

 

 

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, bearcat22 said:

Given those premises being accepted,

I definitely don't agree that imported fuels makes us "vulnerable to unstable world politics". Right now, the US is the most unstable political partner in the world. In 2023, we imported AND exported record amounts of fuel. It looks like you make the mistake of looking at crude coming in from foreign sources as imported, when more often it's just here to be refined and sold off again. 

Trading on the world stage is one of the things that's actually helped the US in the past. Whether oil or other products, dealing with other countries strengthens us, and makes us more resistant to wars and conflicts with these countries. The US should be as diligent when it comes to making products for ourselves. The only things we manufacture for Americans any more is disease and insecurity.

[TheVat]

Appears to be a couple dozen thread topics here.  "Energy in America" could easily be an entire subforum.  Seems like narrowing it to this question

21 hours ago, bearcat22 said:

If there were no government subsidies, which method of generating electricity on a wide scale would be most practical?

would prompt some chat.  Having followed this field for five decades my takeaway is a) depends on where you are, b) depends on structures that store intermittent sourced power, and c) the best solution to line loss and grid woes is decentralized sourcing (either district power, as is being tried more in EU, or home installed systems).

Wind uses the simplest tech, but often requires a lot of grid to get the joules from the windy spots to the populous spots.  It's not the best candidate for rooftop installations.  That said, it can provide an enormous quantity of power, and coastal offshore installations could bring gigawatts to coastal urban centers with fairly low line losses.  And there are areas like western South Dakota which are so relentlessly windy that it's very economical to put up turbines and ship those watts quite a distance. 

Solar is the optimal choice for rooftops, especially in the Southwest and other sunny locales.  It also needs no subsidies once it gains momentum and municipalities and states (lobbied heavily by FF based utilities) don't penalize or block "reverse meter" installs.  

Other sources are even more geographically particular (geothermal, tidal) and would less satisfy the "wide scale" part of the OP question.  But they are very much part of the mosaic of energy sources, as is good old hydro.  

Finally, let's not politicize subsidies.  Subsidies are a time-honored way for societies to designate some innovation as a public good worth developing and encourage companies to implement them.  They are economic training wheels, when done right, and eventually can be removed.  Most projections I've seen on SCC (the social cost of carbon - see Bob Devine's great book, The Sustainable Economy) show a good ROI on incentives for clean energy.