Comments about ‘My view: Energy independence can be done’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 1 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Dear Senator.... I understand you have an objective and narrative you feel compelled to promote and be part of the team, but at the same time. Everyone agree independence is achievable, but not if we sell off our own resources to the highest bidder.

Case and point. In order to achieve energy independence, the US needs to keep its energy resources home. The US is already a net exported of distillate. But if American's resources are freely sold off, then we will always be in a situation where we exchange one form of energy for another that we are dependent on - one that can be used as leverage against the US.

And the Keystone Pipeline - that will be built. This is the largest red herring issue out there. The demands the Republicans made for a carte blanche approval of the Keystone Pipeline - regardless of the fact that a path for that pipeline had yet to be approved by several states, most notably Nebraska, was like asking your local permitting office to approve house permits before the land had even been platted. Until Nebraska approved a path, there was nothing the White House cold approve.

Twisted rhetoric serves no one.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

This editorial is extremely low on facts and high on mindless hype. World wide oil prices have been trending upward, ahead of inflation, for the past 8 years, I'll believe we are in an "energy boom" when oil prices come down and stay down. The days of cheap oil appear to be over and only higher prices will allow us to exploit expensive sources like off shore drilling, tar sands, fracking, and I doubt we will ever see the economical development of Utah's kerogen deposits.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Energy independence has nothing to do with making energy cheaper. Indeed, the reverse is true; expensive energy spurs on new technology and exploration worldwide. The US has sufficient domestic proven reserves to be self sufficient only for the short term, and greater exploitation of the reserves only means we're able to use what we have faster, not that there's more of it. We need to be thinking long term; alternative sources will have to play a role, and to recognise that petroleum will never be inexpensive again.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

@liberal larry - demand outstipping supply does not mean we are not in an energy boom. It just means demand in the developing workd is catching up. But there is more carbon energy production then ever.

Oil prices aren't coming down... ever. No, we are not paying 87 cents per gallon anymore - but we're also not living in a world where the minimum wage is $2.10 either. Math wise - it took a minumum wager earner in the mid 70s 25 minutes to earn a gallon of gas. Today that number is 31 minutes. More, (about 21%) but what many make it to be. The bite is even less fo rnone minumum wager earners.

The other thing that is driving prices of oil is the instability in the middle east - the perceived risk of a disruption in supply. Again, has nothing to do with actually supplies, but is an emotional reaction and betting that "someting" is going to happen.

I do agree with you though on Utah... it will take some time before the math makes sense to exploit those reserves.

KDave
Moab, UT

Energy independence and reducing our trade deficit has been put on hold for 4 more years.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Somehow I just don’t understand how exporting energy resources from America makes America more energy independent.

If there was such a thing as a Truth Squad in our law enforcement, I think there would be more Public Enemies than the available numbers just looking at business oriented politicians.

It would also help if we could just hold them responsible for what they promise.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

This article has nothing to do with energy independence (since the issue at hand is only about exporting and not production). It is little more than a Pavlovian attempt (say “free market” and the base will salivate) to promote completely unfettered (i.e., not regulated in any way) business practices.

So Senator, instead of writing an article which sounds like it was done shortly after you put down Atlas Shrugged, how about actually educating your constituents on the issues by providing facts, some cost benefit analysis, and the arguments for and against this bill.

Or, in direct contrast to the Founders, do you not believe an informed citizenry is the bulwark of (and an asset to) a democracy?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To those of you naysayers, lets look at what can be done.

First, we need to build more nuclear power plants and geothermal plants to provide electricity. Water is not an issue because you can aircool them and modern designs can handle total coolant loss.

While building the reactors you take all of the spent fuel rods and reprocess them and supply the US for the next 200 years with electricity, CO2 free. Even the waste heat can turn CO2 into fuel.

Next, you take the coal and natural gas that is saved and use that for fuel for cars. Coal can be turned into a diesel fuel for vehicles.

Meanwhile we continue to figure out how to make electric cars equal to gas/diesel powered vehicles.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Huh? So how does drilling make us more energy independent? Why will the government nationalize our oil and force it to stay here? What's keeping American oil from being sold overseas?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments