Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. is now energy independent

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#121

Post by thehappypm »

ncmncm wrote: post #109
elihu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ships can be made to burn just about anything as fuel, the main problem is just whether existing ships can burn different fuels without major re-engineering. Even electric shipping is possible, but would require substantial infrastructure investments (e.g. buoys in the middle of large oceans every so often connected to trans-oceanic power cables so the ships can recharge regularly). Electrified shipping will probably…

Batteries for ships will not be a thing. But re-tanking them to carry and burn synthetic anhydrous ammonia will be. It will happen because ammonia will come to be cheaper than bunker oil, enough so to pay for the conversion. Meanwhile, supertankers full of anhydrous ammonia will sail from the tropics to high latitudes in winter to burn in what had been natural gas power plants, because even extracting natural gas wil…

Anhydrous ammonia sounds interesting, got any good articles on it?

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#122

Post by bullen »

emptysongglass wrote: post #116
bullen wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the US imports as much oil as it exports: quality in, shit out. And the wasted energy is enourmous to even barely preserve the quality of life. I think Russia is not invading Ukraine as much as the US is slowly (expanding NATO over decades) "invading" Russia because it desperately needs it's high EROEI sources to pretend we have "business as usual". To no benefit since war consumes too much energy. For the rest…

> I think Russia is not invading Ukraine as much as the US is slowly (expanding NATO over decades) "invading" Russia because it desperately needs it's high EROEI sources to pretend we have "business as usual". This doesn't make any sense and is not in any way a mapping to reality. NATO membership is by request only and its numbers have swelled with ex-Soviet republics who want nothing to do with their former master.…

Ok, interesting that you think anything in life is voluntary. We'll see how history judges the affair, in my experience the only way to disseminate truth is to close down the forum where arguments are held: previously books, now the internet.

NATO is responsible for accepting memberships and keeping their promises, and we are responsible for consuming other peoples energy: mostly our own childrens enegy.

Either way, the only way to avoid conflict is by living frugally. So that holds no matter what.

To think that defence can't be offensive is plain wrong. Do you remember the Cuba crisis?

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#123

Post by Gravityloss »

thehappypm wrote: post #121
ncmncm wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries for ships will not be a thing. But re-tanking them to carry and burn synthetic anhydrous ammonia will be. It will happen because ammonia will come to be cheaper than bunker oil, enough so to pay for the conversion. Meanwhile, supertankers full of anhydrous ammonia will sail from the tropics to high latitudes in winter to burn in what had been natural gas power plants, because even extracting natural gas wil…

Anhydrous ammonia sounds interesting, got any good articles on it?

https://www.motorship.com/searchresults?qkeyword=ammonia

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#124

Post by emptysongglass »

avgcorrection wrote: post #119
emptysongglass wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are negotiating, desperately but Putin's terms are so unhinged as to be ingenuous: "The Russian draft treaties call for NATO to remove any troops or weapons from countries that joined the alliance after 1997, meaning most of Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. It also calls for the U.S. and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in areas where they could be perceived as a t…

Looks like Putin wants back to the 1990 deal that Gorbachev and President Bush made and that American presidents broke: that Nato wouldn’t expand an inch to the east (to East Germany at the time). His demands will obviously not be met. But is Nato even considering any concessions? You don’t have to accept the initial demand (it’s supposed to be a negotiation, after all).

"In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that Nato’s enlargement 'was not discussed at all' at the time:

'Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.'" [1]

[1] https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russi...

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#125

Post by foxyv »

sremani wrote: post #83
wolverine876 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which regulations are raising prices? Also, I'm a little confused: SD and LA are in California, of course.

The LA in the previous comment is likely Louisiana -- where many refineries are based. Also, CA has its own refineries that have additional blend restrictions (if I am not wrong). You cannot legally sell, gasoline that is refined in LA or TX and sell them in CA gas stations.

Naw, he means Los Angeles. Los Angeles County makes a ton of power for So. Cal.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#126

Post by sremani »

foxyv wrote: post #125
sremani wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LA in the previous comment is likely Louisiana -- where many refineries are based. Also, CA has its own refineries that have additional blend restrictions (if I am not wrong). You cannot legally sell, gasoline that is refined in LA or TX and sell them in CA gas stations.

Naw, he means Los Angeles. Los Angeles County makes a ton of power for So. Cal.

You are right -- there are 5 refineries in LA county and 60% of the California capacity. The possibility of them having $1 gallon in CA did not feel real given the taxes and fees per gallon are near or exceed $1.

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#128

Post by wolverine876 »

avgcorrection wrote: post #95
wolverine876 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has no obligations in Ukraine It depends on defining 'obligation'. The US doesn't have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine but does have that obligation to NATO members, and a Russian attack on Ukraine threatens NATO members. Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity - all of which are not only essential in themselves, but essential to the peace and prosperity of Ame…

Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a…

> Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries.

This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO).

>> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity

> To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule

To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?

Re: The U.S. is now energy independent

#129

Post by infamia »

warlog wrote: post #91

Sigh. 1. A barrel of oil isn't just gas.. About half is for bunker oil, diesel and kerosene that runs boats, trucks and jets. That need isn't going away no matter how many batteries you make. The rest (40-50%) of the barrel is a waste stream that can be used as light gasoline, plastics and chemicals. We will always have the second half because we always need the first half. 2. As others have mentioned, all oil is not…

> The energy price predicament is that below $80/barrel, shale and tight producers can't make money (and there will be no further investment) and above $80 and the rest of the economy gets killed.

The numbers you cite aren't anywhere close to correct. U.S. Shale Oil producers were making money at $60/barrel when OPEC was trying to squeeze them out a few years back. Their break even price is about $50/barrel (i.e nowhere near $80 as claimed).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/748207/breakeven-prices-...

http://theamericanenergynews.com/energy-news/column-us-shale...

Post reply on HN