Deseret News | No quick fix for energy

Reader comments
No quick fix for energy

Anonymous | 12:37 a.m. June 24, 2008

This is illogical. Just like increased production, most of the conservation measures will take several years to implement, and most of them will not have significant impact individually.

We're not going to be driving electric cars tomorrow in sufficient numbers. Not next year or the year after either.

The key is numerous approaches to increased conservation and numerous approaches to increased production, and none of these will have significant impacts for the next couple of years. However, collectively, they will over time.

Just say No! | 5:48 a.m. June 24, 2008

Didn't President Bush say that we're "addicted to oil"?... whatever happened to the famous Republican response to addiction of "Just say No!"? The reason conservation is more important than drilling for more supplies is that permanent conservation measures curb need for supplies into the future. Boosting supplies now without conservation simply sates short-term needs. Electrics and plug-in hybrids have been announced for 2010, so a medium term solution is coming, and Americans should be committed to procuring these vehicles! It is better for these cars to be sitting in our garages and charging up on locally produced electricity than having our children and grandchilding continuing to stand in the Mideast desert to "defend" our access to oil!

Ray | 6:00 a.m. June 24, 2008

Inforce a 4 day work week for all employers of pulic and government workers. Shut down all retail on Sundays including sport activites. Stop busing children to school. End the war in Iraq. And the damn problem will be solved in 6 months.

Comments continue below

weezie | 6:30 a.m. June 24, 2008

Fix the markets for speculation. That is where the problem is. Get rid of the Enron laws!

Jeff | 6:42 a.m. June 24, 2008

Hey Deseret News editorial board: pandering to the green left won't win you credibility nor will it win you readership loyalty from an audience that loathes all things conservative. This editorial is an example of your paper being adrift of late. We cannot conserve our way out of the energy crisis, that is simply foolish thinking when consumption of energy for plasma tv's, rechargeable iPods and my new waverunners is increasing year after year. Conservation, at best, can only help slow the increase in demand a little. Rediscover who your audience is: energy consumers with large families who buy lots of electronics and motorized vehicles all of which demand more energy production. Stop pandering and start demanding more production.

michaelh | 6:50 a.m. June 24, 2008

There is nothing controversial about using more of the resources that God has blessed us with. The only controversy is our governmentï¿½s unconstitutional establishment and the fanatical adherence to the false religion of man caused global warming. We must come to our senses now. When the war against Iran begins, no matter who starts it will make oil cost several hundred dollars a barrel. Drill here, drill now and pay less!!!

What are ... | 7:03 a.m. June 24, 2008

"meaningful conservations measures"?

AlAlanon | 7:30 a.m. June 24, 2008

The first step is admitting that you have a problem. As Dr. Bush recognized a couple years ago, we are addicted. Unhappily, he has spent the last 8 years defeating every attempt to lessen our dependence. Anonymous, you are so wrong about how quickly conservation works. Did anyone notice how quickly the penny dropped all over this great land when gasoline got to 4$ a gallon. Overnight, consumers changed. SUVs have become radioactive, and not in the good sense. Americans dropped their rate of driving more than at any other time sense such things started being measured, in the 1940's. And michaelh, your "drain America first, at any cost", is just like a meth head going out to score another hit rather than trying to kick.

Diagnosis | 8:13 a.m. June 24, 2008

The 300 lb. man is sitting in the doctor's office, having just finished a physical examination.

Sez the Doctor:

"Mr. Fatso, your arteries are horribly clogged. Your heart is in danger of failure. You've got do something, soon, or you're going to die."

Says Mr. Fatso:

"That's not all, Doc! I'm going broke buying all those Big Macs! I eat six for breakfast, eight for lunch, and ten for dinner! Have you seen how much they cost now - it's TWICE what I paid just a couple of years ago. I'm going broke!"

Says the Doc, having been recently inspired by President Bush:

That's terrible. I'm going to urge McDonalds to raise more beef in the hopes it'll lower the price on your Big Macs.

Economics 101 | 8:14 a.m. June 24, 2008

The reason 75 percent of Americans want the government to get out of the way and allow for unfettered access to our own petroleum is they can see the train wreck that's upon us. When liberals say it won't fix the problem immediately, the people say, the quicker the faster. When they say it won't bring down the price of oil, the people say flooding the market with any commodity has always brought the price crashing down (economics 101). Those who are informed know that environmentalists are living a dream at the moment and their rhetoric is profoundly unbelievable. Getting away from oil dependence is good, but all at once, it is economic suicide. There is no comfort in Al Gore buying carbon credits so he can enjoy his energy hog life style while millions loose their jobs and suffer to conserve. Just as it came out that Enron had manipulated energy costs, the people know that even now shenanigans are afoot with oil and they are unwilling to accept it.

Dave | 8:29 a.m. June 24, 2008

As to electric cars. We don't have any extra electricity either.

lowonoil | 8:45 a.m. June 24, 2008

We are in the beginning stages of the "Mother of all Downsizings". Our lives will be changing from what they are now to something resembling the the far lower energy consumption lives lived by others around the world, and people from our own past.
This isn't a matter of choice or ideology. It is the reality soon to be forced on us by the facts of geology and thermodynamics. We are losing the ability to feed our lifestyles the energy diet they require.

ABB | 8:58 a.m. June 24, 2008

The energy problem is a bunch of garbage. Energy is as free as the air we breath. cars can run on water. You can even make a motor with permanent magnets - no electrical input. Patens have been issued for this stuff and some of them are easy to duplicate. I think this is the best one: WO9222123

I can't believe we have allowed ourselves into this mess. Don't expect the corporations or the government to save you, they won't. There is too much money and power in selling energy. We have to wake up and realize we being lied to. The solution to the energy problem will have to be a grass roots revolution.

to jeff | 9:04 a.m. June 24, 2008

Its funny, the desnews writes a well reasoned editorial about the best way forward and you chime in with the "stop telling us how it is and just pander to your core audience" line. I guess that is why you watch faux news.

Thomas | 9:23 a.m. June 24, 2008

The only way to put a real dent in oil prices is to nuke China and India, where virtually all the excess demand has been coming from recently. Absent increased supply, that causes the price to rise.

(And of course, since we now live in the Age of Asset Bubbles, every time any asset price starts rising -- be it tech stocks, real estate, or commodities -- the thundering speculative herds gallop in and jack the price up even further, based on nothing more substantive than an expectation that rising prices will continue to rise.)

Roland Kayser | 9:44 a.m. June 24, 2008

I'm not opposed to offshore drilling, but it would cause the price of gas to decline by 1 or 2% in about 8-12 years.

Steve Glaser | 11:18 a.m. June 24, 2008

As to how we can lower demand in a hurry:

If you drive 15,000 miles a year in a car that gets 20 mpg, you can cut out almost half your gas usage if you carpool to work and drive only 12,000 miles a year, and get a car that gets 30 mpg. Drive 60 mph and you will save even more. Carpooling and driving slower can be done immediately; replacing vehicles with higher mileage cars will take some time, but less than drilling off-shore or opening ANWR.

I know that not everyone can do this (the trucker driving the semi isn't going to carpool), but if rest of us do so the price of gas will come down for everyone. Not to mention unclogging the freeways.

Thanks! | 11:32 a.m. June 24, 2008

Mr. Glaser, let me congratulate you for an actual, live, bonafide HELPFUL AND POSITIVE COMMENT! You rock, dude!

lowonoil | 12:04 p.m. June 24, 2008

Mr. Glaser made some excellent suggestions. Unfortunately Millions of people aren't going to do the things a guy named Steve suggested on the Deseret News online comments last Tuesday. We need leaders to tell us the truth about our energy predicament and ask us to do these things as acts of patriotism and good citizenship. Like they did in WW2.
But no US politician is going to have the spine to do that unless there are crowds of Americans marching in the streets chanting "LESS, LESS, LESS!"

Professor | 12:49 p.m. June 24, 2008

Conservation won't make a dent. If we don't explore, drill, develop, experiment, discover while we conserve, we are going to end up a third world country. China and India are doing all those things minus the conservation.

That is just the fact of life.

Oh Please | 1:19 p.m. June 24, 2008

Drive at 55 would save 20 billion barrels a year, more than you could pump from all known US reserves in a year. So simple, yet so far above conservatives' heads.

Frank | 1:20 p.m. June 24, 2008

The more I hear on the subject the more I'm convinced that you'll be better off buckling down and getting ready to eventually pay $5 or $6 a gallon than grasping at straws.

It doesnt look like there is any short term solution regardless which direction you want to go. Gas is not going to go down.

Prices vary but it looks like the average for gas worldwide is about $7-8 a gallon. We may not like it but soon we might be paying what gasoline is actually worth.

Oh Please | 1:25 p.m. June 24, 2008

Bush's mentally challenged approach to what he himself calls our "oil addiction" is to provide more oil fixes and wreck our environment to do it. We need LEADERSHIP. We need a President who can declare a Manhattan Project for energy. The Japanese now have hydrogen cars. We have nothing. Where is the leadership?
Thank heaven for the coming Obama Era.

USA 3rd world | 1:37 p.m. June 24, 2008

Talk about late! I didnt know Japanese had hydrogen cars already. Figures, theyve got hydrogen, most of South America has natural gas and alcohol run cars. When did we get so far behind!

Randy | 2:08 p.m. June 24, 2008

Conserve, drill more, create new technologies/solutions. 2015 will be here before you know it.

Student | 2:19 p.m. June 24, 2008

Professor;
Your comment that conservation "won't make a dent" makes me wonder what you are a professor of. Have you been following the story on the massive drop in gasoline consumption that we just posted, in the wake of 4$ a gallon gas? C'mon, tell us what you are claiming to be a "professor" of.

jay | 2:30 p.m. June 24, 2008

Look it takes a combined approach conservation yes of course increased drilling and use of our own resources yes (a matter of national security) we need to minimize our dependence on foreign energy develop alternative fuel sources utilize and develop viable electric cars build clean safe nuclear power plants.
I hear people saying oil shale and offshore drilling and ANWAR development will take 10 years to have any impact. Yes it will (take 10 years) had we started all of this 10 years ago we wouldnï¿½t be in this mess. Wee were all fat dumb and happy buying our SUV's driving around on cheap gas after the last oil crisis of the late 70's but we didnï¿½t do anything because gas prices dropped
Take the combined approach, wean ourselves off of foreign oil, develop domestic supplies, conserve and build electric power that is clean and safe,
Develop alternative fuel. Sure it isn't a quick fix, it wonï¿½t solve the problem in the short term. It will be painful but ten years from now we will be much better off. (I hate paying the people who despise us for their oil (Hugo Chavez)

McMurrayite | 7:54 p.m. June 24, 2008

I read an article this afternoon in a local paper about a group of US big city mayors who are beginning to oppose the development of the Athabasca tar sands. I should imagine most of these mayors could not find the sands on a map. They aren't in the US. They are, however, a critical, huge and stable source of energy to the US.
Unconventional oil development has a massive footprint. If US mayors thousands of kilometres and a border away want it stopped in an almost uninhabited area, wait till all the 'drill and explore here' folks get their way. Have fun with it.

Red | 7:59 p.m. June 24, 2008

Food for thought --

1. Nationwide 55 MPH speed limit. Could be implemented as fast as they can put up new signs. Sierra Club estimate: would save the equivalent of ALL the oil we now import from the Middle east!

2. Synchronized traffic lights. In use in San Francisco since the 60s (at least!). Could be done in weeks. Savings would be significant.

3. Having the yellow light come on with the red light, just before the red goes to green. Would allow drivers to switch off their engines while waiting. Could be done right away. Turning off fuel-injected engines at stop lights makes most small cars almost as fuel-stingy as a Prius.

4. Using Highway Trust Fund money (Federal fuel tax dollars) to improve more roads, making them more fuel-friendly.

5. Lease new offshore drilling areas. Wouldn't do anything for oil supply -- or prices! -- for at least a couple of Senate terms.

Which one are the politicians hawking?

(By the way, I got 49+ MPG in my 2001 Hyundai the last time I filled up.)

Lionheart | 8:22 p.m. June 24, 2008

I believe we are at the beginning of a renaissance in energy, everything will be on the table and the public attention will move the politician off their keisters to clear the way. Many different energy sources will be developed and the best will survive and be increased. And it won't be the mickey mouse or rube goldberg ideas that make it.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.