Carter's Speech on Energy

I'm sure I'm going to get slammed for this since I'm one of the few people that actually like Jimmy Carter but someone made a comment on one of the news channels that I watch that if this country had heeded his warning that we would not be in the energy pickle that we are today. I only vaguely remember the speech so I dug it up. Some of the stuff he said particularly near the end pretty darn interesting considering.

So if you can stomach it....


American Experience | Jimmy Carter | Primary Sources

[migtig (Premo)]

Very interesting. I recently "heard" that the oil bubble, you know that imaginary drop of oil that signals we are on the downward oil spiral and that there is nothing else to replace it, actually occurred in 2003. Predictions now with continued terrorism targets being oil wells and reserves, and with China emerging as a huge resource user the more they grow and expand economically, state that we will run out of oil in 2017. No new drilling will help this situation. Actually all new drilling has found hard to reach reserves and the cost of reaching them is something like the use of two barrels of oil for every three barrels produced. The only mega fields still left are in Saudi and they are over 60 years old and the House of Saud no longer allows oil field inspections - so there is no telling how much they actually are producing anymore.

Anyhow, any reports of this crap is hard to confirm and nobody wants to discuss it. Especially not the politicians who would lose a lot of oil related "donations".

I think it will be interesting to try and follow how much is actually being done worldwide over the next few years and not just in the US to reduce oil related energy consumption.

Originally Posted by migtig

Very interesting. I recently "heard" that the oil bubble, you know that imaginary drop of oil that signals we are on the downward oil spiral and that there is nothing else to replace it, actually occurred in 2003. Predictions now with continued terrorism targets being oil wells and reserves, and with China emerging as a huge resource user the more they grow and expand economically, state that we will run out of oil in 2017. No new drilling will help this situation. Actually all new drilling has found hard to reach reserves and the cost of reaching them is something like the use of two barrels of oil for every three barrels produced. The only mega fields still left are in Saudi and they are over 60 years old and the House of Saud no longer allows oil field inspections - so there is no telling how much they actually are producing anymore.

Anyhow, any reports of this crap is hard to confirm and nobody wants to discuss it. Especially not the politicians who would lose a lot of oil related "donations".

I think it will be interesting to try and follow how much is actually being done worldwide over the next few years and not just in the US to reduce oil related energy consumption.

Wouldn't you think with all the ingenuity in this world that someone, somewhere would have come up with an alternate plan? Actually I guess nuclear plants, solar power, etc is a better plan - had this discussion with someone on the forum about why not? It kept coming back to the oil companies don't want that - kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Wow! Thanks for posting that, but where do you start? I guess the first thing is how can you ask Americans to worry about a crisis that Americans are inventing? How can you restrict the use of nuclear power, restrict oil exploration, refuse building permits for refineries, and then catterwall about shortages when the shortages are all of our own doing and within our control to correct?

Second, Carter, like lots of his ilk, were sure we would be running out of oil by now. Instead we have Brazil finding fields to rival those of the Saudis, it's looking like there's a lot more oil under Iraq than has been thought, oil shale in the US can give us oil for the next 60 years alone! He cites that domestic oil production was falling and imports were up, and going to get higher, but never explains that this has nothing to do with our oil running out and everything to do with making more money off oil. All the dire predictions that Carter made about oil running out were based on faulty science and 100% wrong... kinda like man-made global warming is today.

And why is that whenever a Democrat talks about "comprehensive energy policy", it seems to always consist of no nuclear and higher milage requirements and that's about it? Carter talks about the need to use more coal, but then the Democrats block coal-fired power plants. He speaks of the need to use less fossil fuels, but restricts nuclear power plants.

And how about his great idea of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What the heck has that done for us? Everytime we have an energy crisis, we're told we can't use the petroleum reserve because if a crisis occurs we won't have it. That's some serious pretzel logic.

[migtig (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Dixie

Wouldn't you think with all the ingenuity in this world that someone, somewhere would have come up with an alternate plan? Actually I guess nuclear plants, solar power, etc is a better plan - had this discussion with someone on the forum about why not? It kept coming back to the oil companies don't want that - kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Well actually France gets the majority of it's energy from Nuclear reactors - but we can't build any new ones in the US because they aren't "safe".

Also there are a wide variety of hybrid and energy efficient vehicles throughout Europe that aren't "safe" for Americans. Heck, there are a wide variety of "American" hybrid and energy efficient vehicles that have low emissions in the state of CA, but they don't pass "federal" guidelines and aren't allowed out of the state.

Yep, it does make me wonder. It also disappoints me a lot, because much of the technology and knowledge is available to make these things happen - they just aren't encouraged by our government, so they don't happen. It's expensive to make a switch, but if oil compaines can receive "grants" and "funding" then why can't the alternatives.

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Wow! Thanks for posting that, but where do you start? I guess the first thing is how can you ask Americans to worry about a crisis that Americans are inventing? How can you restrict the use of nuclear power, restrict oil exploration, refuse building permits for refineries, and then catterwall about shortages when the shortages are all of our own doing and within our control to correct?

Second, Carter, like lots of his ilk, were sure we would be running out of oil by now. Instead we have Brazil finding fields to rival those of the Saudis, it's looking like there's a lot more oil under Iraq than has been thought, oil shale in the US can give us oil for the next 60 years alone! He cites that domestic oil production was falling and imports were up, and going to get higher, but never explains that this has nothing to do with our oil running out and everything to do with making more money off oil. All the dire predictions that Carter made about oil running out were based on faulty science and 100% wrong... kinda like man-made global warming is today.

And why is that whenever a Democrat talks about "comprehensive energy policy", it seems to always consist of no nuclear and higher milage requirements and that's about it? Carter talks about the need to use more coal, but then the Democrats block coal-fired power plants. He speaks of the need to use less fossil fuels, but restricts nuclear power plants.

And how about his great idea of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What the heck has that done for us? Everytime we have an energy crisis, we're told we can't use the petroleum reserve because if a crisis occurs we won't have it. That's some serious pretzel logic.

Bru - first to admit I don't understand anything about oil, gas, why it's gone up so much etc etc. I wonder though if we'd find ourselves in the position we're in right now if we had heeded the warning (or the government forced us to heed the warning) and improved mass transit, invented more fuel efficient cars, etc. My parents go to Europe on a pretty frequent basis and say the mass transit system in some countries is outstanding and nearly everyone drives the Smart cars. When I lived in Baltimore, many moons ago, I didn't need to own a car, city busses went everywhere I wanted to go.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by migtig

Well actually France gets the majority of it's energy from Nuclear reactors - but we can't build any new ones in the US because they aren't "safe".

Also there are a wide variety of hybrid and energy efficient vehicles throughout Europe that aren't "safe" for Americans. Heck, there are a wide variety of "American" hybrid and energy efficient vehicles that have low emissions in the state of CA, but they don't pass "federal" guidelines and aren't allowed out of the state.

Yep, it does make me wonder. It also disappoints me a lot, because much of the technology and knowledge is available to make these things happen - they just aren't encouraged by our government, so they don't happen. It's expensive to make a switch, but if oil compaines can receive "grants" and "funding" then why can't the alternatives.

Does anybody really believe the government wants there to be alternatives?

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Dixie

had this discussion with someone on the forum about why not? It kept coming back to the oil companies don't want that - kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

I may be putting on my tin-foil hat (or my realistic cynic's cap, depending on your point of view), but I have always suspected that there are cars which can run on something as cheap as air, and also that there are superefficient cars which can run for hundreds or thousands of miles on a single tank of gas. I've also suspected that there's a fuel source out there that's cheap and plentiful, but it would put the oil boys out of business, and therefore the formula sits on a shelf behind a 5 ton steel door.


I've been working on computers for the past 23 years, and I have watched day by day, and year by year, how incredibly far technology has advanced over those 23 years... from Pong to Oblivion: The Elder Scrolls. From word processing to operating the Phoenix lander.


That's a measly 23 years.... therefore I find it incredibly difficult to believe that automotive and fuel technology has made almost NO significant advances over the past 100+ years.



There's just no money in it, until the day fossil fuel becomes SO expensive that simply nobody can afford it and the profits drop, or until we run out completely.







And then we can buy canisters of hydrogen - the most plentiful element in the universe - for exorbitant prices.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Dixie

Bru - first to admit I don't understand anything about oil, gas, why it's gone up so much etc etc. I wonder though if we'd find ourselves in the position we're in right now if we had heeded the warning (or the government forced us to heed the warning) and improved mass transit, invented more fuel efficient cars, etc. My parents go to Europe on a pretty frequent basis and say the mass transit system in some countries is outstanding and nearly everyone drives the Smart cars. When I lived in Baltimore, many moons ago, I didn't need to own a car, city busses went everywhere I wanted to go.

Gas prices are up because speculators artificially doubled the cost of crude oil, which would mean a savings of around 0.60 to 0.70/gal at the pump to you.

However, you answer the question with the question. If it were economically worthwhile to people and/or the local municipalities, there would be better mass transit. When you're in an area where people tolerate and accept mass transit as a worthwhile means of transportation, that's what you have (Europe, NYC). When you have people who want to drive themselves, they do (pretty much everywhere else in USA). As long as people are willing to commit to the cost of the drive, people still will, and municipalities will not greatly improve mass transit. Most everywhere great sums of tax dollars are sunk into "bettering" mass transit, it's a waste of money. Perhaps that will change.

But, most of us don't want to be told how to get to and from work, friend's homes, etc., etc. We want to do what we want to do. And, for the majority of the country, mass transit is not viable. I'll presume you're from here in So.MD - if you don't commute to DC, Baltimore, Anapolis, etc., what good would a larger mass transit system be here? And, this is a fairly densely populated area compared to the bulk of the US. It's just not viable for us, and that's okay. IT'S OKAY TO BE DIFFERENT THAN EUROPE, honestly.

BTW, what about Carter did you like most?

Originally Posted by Toxick

I may be putting on my tin-foil hat (or my realistic cynic's cap, depending on your point of view), but I have always suspected that there are cars which can run on something as cheap as air, and also that there are superefficient cars which can run for hundreds or thousands of miles on a single tank of gas. I've also suspected that there's a fuel source out there that's cheap and plentiful, but it would put the oil boys out of business, and therefore the formula sits on a shelf behind a 5 ton steel door.


I've been working on computers for the past 23 years, and I have watched day by day, and year by year, how incredibly far technology has advanced over those 23 years... from Pong to Oblivion: The Elder Scrolls. From word processing to operating the Phoenix lander.


That's a measly 23 years.... therefore I find it incredibly difficult to believe that automotive and fuel technology has made almost NO significant advances over the past 100+ years.



There's just no money in it, until the day fossil fuel becomes SO expensive that simply nobody can afford it and the profits drop, or until we run out completely.







And then we can buy canisters of hydrogen - the most plentiful element in the universe - for exorbitant prices.

I believe it too - I guess the question is - how do you force it out in the open then?