world

Obama sets ambitious goal to reduce U.S. oil imports

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

idiot...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Naturally, if this plan involves moving to renewables that will help produce cleaner air for people and their children, Republicans and conservatives won't have a bar of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3 What renewables can the United States switch to? People throw out these terms but specifically how do you go about replacing a gas powered car? You don't. The U.S. sits on massive oil reserves and exploration has grinded to a halt....oh except through Petrobras which is doing that in the Gulf Of Mexico funded by U.S. dollars. It is beyond idiocy not to tap into a nations resources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Energy and Electrical biggest woes, to solve in years beyond 2011.

Japan radiation leak, stems from rush to make electricity energy via unsafe practices.

The way,we use and make energy must be safe and nature friendly way.

The challenge for energy R&D scientists/reseachers, in USA and in all nations ,in coming decades,is to come up ,with new ways of making electricity,in a safe and nature friendly way.

Let the funds flows where it should for this.

Where the funds flows in USA,they will be the new revival centres of economic growth .

Silicon Valley,is center of economic growth of new info technologies R&D.

The new centres of Silicon Valley like economic growth,will be Energy R&D valleys in USA.

If there is great breakthroughs in Energy R&D,it will be next major revenue earner for USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alternate Energy is all good and dandy, but it comes with quiet a few hurdles.

Yes, you can build wind-farms and Solar-farms in deserts and less populated areas. Problem comes that you need to ship the power to where it is needed and there is quiet a loss of power on the wires while transmitted over large distances.

Also many of modern alternate energy/eco-friendly creation still rely heavily on modern plastics, etc so we need to increase oil usage producing those in order to use less oil. Ditto for alternate energy creation rely on high tech lubricants = more oil needs to be used for those.

So while trying to reduce dependancy on oil is admirable, it needs to be done for way more than Fuel, electricity, etc generation as nearly everything we touch or use relies on oil based products or are used in its manufacture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the US does not need to import any oil since the oil reserves of the US is massive. They choose to import oil so others can buy Treasury Bills and other fiat instruments of debt. =The US does not need to invade Iraq, Libya, Iran for oil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey: The US actually has comparatively little oil reserves, but quite a lot of natural gas. What we need for future energy policy is a combination of natural gas, alternative energy and conservation. These are things that we can control ourselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll say the same thing I've said to every other US President: I'll believe it when I see it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is a President who calls natural gas an alternative fuel. The same one who recently stated that the purpose of education is to create "workers".

I rest my case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Naturally, if this plan involves moving to renewables that will help produce cleaner air for people and their children, Republicans and conservatives won't have a bar of it.

So, which would you like? The windfarm? Oddly, all the little libs are happy to build em, as long as they don't have to have them anywhere nearby. Of course they also prefer not to consider that in order to work, you have to have another plant on standby to carry the load.

Solar has huge environmental issues as well. Not only that, but its simply not cost effective. It costs much more then you will save, and unless they come up with a massive increase in efficiency, solar simply isn't worth it. It is like Ethanol, needing billions in subsidies to keep afloat.

Badsey: The US actually has comparatively little oil reserves, but quite a lot of natural gas. What we need for future energy policy is a combination of natural gas, alternative energy and conservation. These are things that we can control ourselves.

Actually, this is not true. We have both the oil reserves, as well as the natural gas reserves, not to mention coal. However much of these resources are locked up by legislation and executive order.

Obama can talk all he wants, with his forked tongue, but actions speak louder then his twisted words. Simply look at the number of permits issued by Obama. There are next to none. Oddly though, he seems perfectly content to pay Petrobas billions of dollars to drill 2 feet outside our territorial waters, then allow a US company to do it for free. Obama has absolutely no credibility on energy. None.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saudi Arabia has 267 million barrels of proven oil reserves. Venezuela, 297 million. The US: 21 million. There's no way we can ever produce enough oil to be independent of exports.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And also, the US uses 70% of it's oil for tranportation. Natural gas could help that situation, not coal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushisake:

" Naturally, if this plan involves moving to renewables that will help produce cleaner air for people and their children, Republicans and conservatives won't have a bar of it. "

You bet they would, if it made any sense. As fuzzy as the political positions are sometimes in the US, it is safe to say that Reps generally look at facts, while Dems look at fiction.

Of course, Middle Eastern oil dependence is a huge problem that must be addressed. But the idea that a modern industrial nation can windmill-and-solar-panel itself out of fossil fuel dependence is ludicrious beyond belief.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

paulinusa:

" Saudi Arabia has 267 million barrels of proven oil reserves. Venezuela, 297 million. The US: 21 million. There's no way we can ever produce enough oil to be independent of exports. "

That is if you look at high-quality crude oil. But once the world-wide proven reserves 1200 billion barrels (give or take a couple) of that are used up and the price gets high enough, you are looking at oil sands and oil shale. And if you start using that, suddenly the USA and Canada have reserves that dwarf everything else.

And if nothing realistic is done until that (and politically correct pie-in-the sky stuff like windmills and corn ethanol are not realistic), then the oil sands will be used, regardless of the environmental disaster that accompanies them.

Because in the end, political correctness talk, but facts on the ground walk. You need fuel to survive, not hot talk by Obama et al.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't blame Obama for higher gas price, biggest deficit, or anything else; because he doesn't think so. His team has a clear agenda implementing the imaginary solution to the clean energy. Spain Britain all have tried wind mill and solar power as their hope to revive the economy, and the fact is not working so well as expected. There is no magic bullet to it, if someone claim to be; it must be fake. Last week Obama urged Brazil to drill and U.S will buy the oil. Now he wants to cut foreign oil dependency, isn't that Brazil a foreign country? No American boot in Libya, except the CIA team? NATO takes command and most bombs and planes are American? Wow, where is he going?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is only doing this because he needs to build some momentum heading towards the 2012 election.

What an absolute fool.

I hope he loses in a landslide. He is a disaster for America and for the world.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nuclear is the way to go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and politically correct pie-in-the sky stuff like windmills and corn ethanol are not realistic

Sorry, WilliB, but that is simply not true. Wind turbines are hardly pie-in-the sky but a clean and competitive energy source. No one is suggesting that any country could meet all of their energy requirements from renewables but they could meet a significant percentage of their requirements from them. This is particularly true of the US with its large land mass and good wind resource in many areas. This is why companies such as GE have expanded aggressively into wind. Wind can actually be cheaper than nuclear and nuclear is about to become even more expensive. What is needed is a good energy mix of which renewables are definitely a part.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gross domestic product per barrel of oil used:

USA: $1,605 Japan: $2,294 Germany: $2,819 UK: $3,393

The US ranks 15th in terms of GDP per barrel. There remains much room to squeeze efficiencies from existing consumption. Unfortunately, the Republicans react to this by going ballistic over light bulb efficiency standards. Typical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh, Laguna, have you noticed the difference size between those countries and the US?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see where you're coming from, SuperLib, so I Googled "percentage of oil used for automobiles in the United States" and found that, according to the Department of Energy, "It accounts for almost 45 percent of all oil use." So, certainly, given that the US as a large country requires more driving, its position in the rankings would be lower. On the other hand, many areas in the US don't require much heating in winter, which should push its ranking higher. My point remains: there is much from for further efficiencies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, WilliB, but that is simply not true. Wind turbines are hardly pie-in-the sky but a clean and competitive energy source.

They are also exceedingly loud, a danger to birds, and lets not forget, that in order to use them, you have to keep another generator on standby to make up the load. And finally, you also need to take into account the maintenance cost. Let me tell you, its not cheap. Averaging it out, nuclear is the cheapest energy, followed by coal, gas and oil, the 2 most inefficient in terms of cost per kilowatt hour... You guessed it, wind and solar.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, the objections you mention are either minor or irrelevant and certainly no reason not to promote wind energy. As for costs well it is debatable, GE claim wind is cheaper than nuclear, coal and wind per kilowatt hour but it depends on your assumptions and location. Realistically, wind costs around 6 US cents per kilowatt hour which is comparable with nuclear and coal, and that is ignoring the disposal cots of nuclear waste and the carbon (climate change) cost of coal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bogart:

" Sorry, WilliB, but that is simply not true. Wind turbines are hardly pie-in-the sky but a clean and competitive energy source. "

If that was the case, all countries would be plastered with windmills today, without any government subsidies. That would be simple market mechanisms speaking loud and clear.

In the event, in all the countries where windmills are built that happens because power companies are forced to buy their production at expensive rates, even if not needed.

PLUS, because of the unstable nature of wind power, the windmills being in the grid means that traditional plants have to always power up and down to compensate for the wind fluctuations. Which means that the traditional plants have a) to run at inefficient states most of the time and b) their equipment is worn out much quicker because of the additional stress.

Does that figure anywhere in your calculations? No, I didn´t think so.

Meanwhile, try to run the cooling for the hot rods at Fukushima with wind power. Oops, no wind? Tough luck. But we can feel so warm and fuzzy...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With great speeches like this, there's no way President Obama can lose his re-election bid next year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Willi is right, wind isn't competitive and isn't reliable. Solar is expensive and isn't on for half the day. Fossil fuel fouls the atmosphere. Nuclear? Doesn't bother me but some are in a lather. The best short term solution is conservation but people need to be convinced that they should make the effort. The best way to do that is hit them in the wallet. The problem is going to force a change in standard of living that people don't want to think about and politicians fear to mention. So we get platitudes instead of real action. Obama is a typical politician. Not a real leader at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree with ca1ic0cat & WilliB.

Alternate energy sources(Wind & Solar) can't replace nuclear and at best are band-aids.

We need to look at our life-styles and readjust. Ditto for electric cars where will the power come from to charge them.

I worked for a few decades in IT and had to arrange deals so that we could get enough power to enlarge our Data-center.

The electronic goods we use today and rely on like PC's, Game-stations, Internet, aircon(to keep everything cool), etc are a HUUUGE drain on the power-grid.

Add to that many countries not been adding new power-plants for a few decades and guess where the current brownouts, etc in major cities are coming from?

Not many people know that 10-15% of their electricity bill comes from having their DVD/Blue-ray recorders, Game-stations, etc as they still draw power to be on stand-by so when you hit the remote they become active.

As for Obama as a non-american I found his speech interesting where he said HE will make sure that no country will cause Radiation to be released into the environment and that no country will release nuclear info to unsuitable parties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Attacking Libya will probably help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A wind turbine is 1-2MW (MegaWatts) now =25+ Turbines to replace you typical 50MW coal powerplant. They can throw up a few of these a day now =you see these trucks in the Midwest carrying the generator or base on the highways quite a bit and you see these wind turbines in the ground everywhere. i65, 41 in Northern Indiana = a few hundred turbines there and most were installed <1 yr ago. Google "Indiana Wind"

Obama could use the natural gas from the Alaska oilfields instead of just pumping it back into the ground. Pipeline was designed for this (small top pipe)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is why companies such as GE have expanded aggressively into wind.

That has more to do with the massive production subsidies that the government pays turbine makers to build them. If you subsidized wind turbines at the same rate as other sources such as coal, natural gas, or even nuclear energy GE would drop production of them in a heartbeat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There should be more goverment involvement in exploitation of the energy of ocean waves. There are the similarities between hydroelectric power and wave power, the principal connection being that water can be stored. Wave energy has some significant advantages over wind energy, such as the high density of water compared to air. Wave energy is also more consistent than wind energy. The wind may die down abruptly, bringing wind turbines to a standstill, but waves will often continue for days after the wind that caused them has subsided. In addition, wave energy is more predictable than wind and offers the opportunity for energy storage that wind lacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If U.S. goverment truly wants to reduce oil imports, they can demand all the auto manufacturer to limit the new passenger car engine to 2000 cc (122 cid), with around 150hp by 2015. This will reduce U.S. oil consumption by 20 percent in ten years. In most cases, this is all you need for everyday driving and you can average over 30-40 miles per gallon. Unless it's a commercial vehicle, you do not need larger V6 or V8 cars or SUV's with 4000 to 6000 pounds of weight and there should be a weight limitations for new vehicles. Anything beyond 2000 cc, on a tax scale, goverment should tax buyers 25 to 50 percent of the purchase price for those who wants to buy a gas guzzler vehicles and are willing to pay the heavy penalty. This will force alot of buyers who were thinking of V6 or V8 to buy smaller 4 cylinder cars and SUV's. Time to change habits for American drivers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The president also ordered government agencies to ensure that by 2015, all new vehicles they purchase are alternative-fuel vehicles, including hybrid and electric. Obama has previously set a goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015."

Only 300 GM Volts were sold in December.The private sector still resists the messaging.I wonder how many have forgotten candidate Obama's admonition about the vital importance of keeping tires filled to the point where maximum fuel efficiency (on our increasing pothole-ridden roads)can be achieved.But I see that government agencies are going to buy fleets of GM Volts.Tens of thousands of em.Actually,it is taxpayers who will be paying for them.But it should make you feel good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

321 Chevy Volt units sold in January and 281 in February.That is about 12 percent of the manufactured amount.This is another colossal Obamanomics failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is about 12 percent of the manufactured amount.This is another colossal Obamanomics failure.

Since the Volt was conceived by GM and designed long before President Obama took office, how do the early sales numbers constitute a failure by President Obama?

Is this yet another example of your trolling the JT message boards pretending to be something you're not, Lieberman?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 04:55 AM JST - 3rd April. Since the Volt was conceived by GM and designed long before President Obama took office, how do the early sales numbers constitute a failure by President Obama?

Because U.S. goverment has been a majority owner of GM since the bailout for the last three years. Since this is his company, Obama could've scrap the project. Nobody in the right mind wants $40K+ Volt wanna be hybrid with tiny 1.4 litre engine and a marginal performance. Toyota Prius hybrid is alot better car at half the price.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since this is his company, Obama could've scrap the project.

Oh, so the president gets to second-guess GM's automotive engineers and marketing team?

Simply crazy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 02:50 AM JST - 6th April. Oh, so the president gets to second-guess GM's automotive engineers and marketing team?

What have the GM staff done well other than bankrupt the company?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What have the GM staff done well other than bankrupt the company?

GM today is not a bankrupt company. They can be criticized as can all automobile companies. None are perfect.

But it's ludicrous to believe that a politician with no background in the industry can come in and dictate a successful strategy to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 04:55 AM JST - 6th April, But it's ludicrous to believe that a politician with no background in the industry can come in and dictate a successful strategy to them.

If you didn't know, this has happened already. Obama does not want to run GM, while he spells out how it's going to be run. He was spelling out how now we're gonna move forward on building these little cars. That's what GM are going to do and the federal government are going to boost purchases to provide the impetus for these fuel economy cars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

His goals are ambitious,and unconstitutional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites