SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (27398)7/14/2008 2:53:09 PM
From: axial  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 46821
 
"Such an exchange would have been inconceivable as recently as a decade ago. Our standing in the world of oil has fallen a long way in a short time."

The problem with this statement, like many others about Bush's Saudi Arabian disappointment, is that it personalizes the issue. The primary reason Saudi Arabia now places little reliance on the United States is that other nations have now grown to parity in demand for oil: the United States is just one market among many. Fifteen years ago, demand from China or India was inconsequential, and the United States was the world's best customer.

"In fact, we may be at a critical juncture, the kind that can creep up, in a gradual and insidious way, on companies and industries, and even on societies. Invariably, the actions that are needed to change course at such times are painful. Leaders rarely appreciate the gravity of their situation, and even when they do, they are loath to take appropriate action."

May be at a critical juncture?

Excuse me? Informed people have been nagging on this issue for years - even Grove says so:

"After Nixon, president after president set similar goals."

Let's not confuse unachieved goals with failure to recognize the problem!

"Not only did America fail to meet the goals, but the goals themselves were unwise. A faulty goal leads to the wrong actions; so even if we execute flawlessly, we fail."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Decreased dependence means increased freedom, especially from the ghastly and expensive proposition called war. This is the heart of the matter. Most people quite properly concluded that "energy independence" didn't truly mean total independence, but decreased (and decreasing) reliance on foreign sources of energy - remembering that at some point, ALL fossil fuel sources would cease to exist (viz. Huppert's "peak oil, etc). Remember, this debate started well before global warming was identified as a potentially dangerous phenomenon; warming exacerbates the difficulty, but Grove neatly sidesteps it, even as he proposes increased use of coal.

Let's just assume, for the moment, that previous administrations (and governments, in other jurisdictions) HAD achieved the goal of "energy independence". Every reader here knows that would have meant a huge increase in electrification. It's been discussed countless times on this thread - even to the comment last year that DOE projections haven't accounted for the increase in resistance heating. Go back 6 years, to discussions about France's domestic power supplies, 80% nuclear. That was France's response to the oil embargoes of the 70's.

The problem in North America was NOT a "faulty goal". It was failure to achieve a wise goal.

"Estimates show that converting these vehicles to dual-fuel operation, even with electricity providing no more than 50 miles of driving range between daily recharging, could cut petroleum imports by 50 to 60 percent—a stunning opportunity."

Thanks, Andy. I can show you fuel-cell research from the early 90's that established hybrid vehicles would be first to gain ascendancy, around 2007. And now, with generation maxed out, a failing grid, and dated infrastructure where do you propose we shall obtain all this energy? The steps to anticipate electrical demand from displaced fossil fuel usage were never taken, and still aren't being taken.

Perhaps there's some value in seeing comments from a recognized figure. But there's nothing new here, and Grove's comments are a re-statement of obvious facts, making distinctions without a difference.

Jim