Foreign oil independence by 2030: Can we make it happen?
The most hyped car ever?
Too much marketing, too much spin, too little leadership?
Yesterday I read that some believe that GM’s new CEO Dan Akerson is too focused on marketing, rather than product – a tendency that has often plagued GM in the past. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it got me thinking about goals and leadership, especially in corporate America and in Congress.
Obviously, profitability is the primary goal of automakers, and achieving foreign oil independence isn’t profitable today, at least not in conventional terms. Thus, the concept of foreign oil independence is irrelevant in the corporate boardrooms of most automakers.
But will foreign oil independence be profitable in 2030?
While that might seem like a ‘no, duh’ kind of question, the US is not on a path to be foreign oil independent by 2030, not even close, despite the significant uptick in green marketing from automakers.
For instance, add up the production forecasts offered by the Big 3 for hybrid and EV penetration, plus current pickup truck sales and 2025 CAFE requirement proposals coupled with the 20 year legacy effect of today’s auto sales, and foreign oil independence by 2030 seems a joke. Then add in government and industry forecasts for oil consumption in 2030 and it’s obvious that foreign oil independence by 2030 is barely even conceivable.
There’s just too many quarterly corporate statements and election cycles between today and 2030 for a legitimate focus on foreign oil independence.
Sure the oil might dry up or become too expensive and we’ll simply have no choice, but such foreign oil independence will come with massive costs. Why not be better prepared, especially with so much innovative, job-creating potential at hand?
Achieving energy independence won’t happen over night. Even if nothing but 100 mpg vehicles were built starting today, it would still take 20 years to replace the hundreds of millions of vehicles already guzzling on US roads. Thus, we really have to understand the long term consequences of today’s automotive decisions.
Especially since the energy forecasts suggest that the oil is drying up as demand is set to explode.
Certainly it’s possible that new biotechnologies, natural gas, etc. will be able to offset the decline in oil availability without any serious economic harm, but the last 20 years of foreign oil dependence suggest we won’t be prepared. Moreover, the problems caused by foreign oil dependence over the last two decades seem to be escalating, quite significantly in fact. Based on such a trajectory, isn’t banking on another 20+ years of dependency a risky gamble?
So why not be proactive? Call it our generation’s moonshot, our Manhattan project. Foreign oil independence is just as significant.
Recently, an Accenture study found that the key for future US automotive success is energy diversity and innovation. However, the most successful path towards this new energy future requires sound, long term government policy that supports long term independent investment. Additionally, the plan has to be lean and mean, not filled with pork. In order to remain competitive, according to Accenture, the new plan forward has to be built upon a cost-effective plan that can utilize our legacy infrastructure, at least in the interim.
So where is the Congressional study or the Presidential task force on Foreign Oil Independence by 2030? I mean why not study the different combination of resources and technologies that could make such a goal happen using a number of diverse and objective resources? Why not find out what the costs would be versus the long term ROI?
Give each automaker, for instance, a budget to put forth a plan. Same for the energy companies. Add in a number of universities, and analyst firms like Accenture. Then consolidate the best of all plans.
Considering that the US spends 100′s of billions of dollars every year on foreign oil that we spend many billions more securing, isn’t a serious study on ending this addiction as quickly and cost-effectively as possible a worthy first step towards recovery, towards change? Considering this new energy future is inevitable one way or another, isn’t it a dereliction of duty that Congress has not yet made this issue a top priority?
Something like regenerative braking has to stay. It just makes way too much sense. Still, even that is sketchy because maybe hydraulics, for instance, could achieve the same but at a cheaper cost. Ultimately, I just think that efficiency will ultimately coincide with cost-effectiveness.
unless OPEC is broken and new trade agreements revolving around oil are created, all foreign oil should be looked at the same since it’s a world market, at least in my opinion.
foreign oil independence?
More than 50% of our oil currently comes from the Western Hemisphere and we are talking about countries like Canada and Mexico…
I just don’t believe the average American is going to consider oil from Canada and Mexico as ‘foreign’ in the same way they might think of oil from the middle east.
Most Americans when you say “foreign oil” think middle east, no?
Oh.. I too think regenerative braking is here to stay as well as the BMW method of individual electric motors at each wheel and the Chevy Volt approach of using the ICE engine as a generator of electricity – much like the diesel hybrids do on locomotives and ships now days.
Those things will happen – no matter the fuel for the ICE engine… right?
[...] I asked whether foreign oil independence by 2030 was possible. More important, I asked why there isn’t a massive research effort into ways of [...]
That Bakken oil field has been disputed by many. I think if it were easy to reach light sweet crude, we’d be tapping it. Likewise, isn’t that Rock Mountain reserve mostly oil tars and shale? Such reserves have extra costs and I think we’re getting to a point where other more clean and sustainable alternative fuels can better compete with oil tars and sands.
it’s “promises” larry. from the research i’ve seen on alternative fuels and syn fuels, no one fuel seems capable of replacing oil according to a massive amount of research all over the world. syn fuels could be an important part of the mix though.
ultimately, i think mpgs will still matter. i also think the future will embrace efficiency simply because it makes obvious sense. however, if syn fuels, for instance, could mean that hybrids and battery-powered vehicles aren’t necessary, so be it. nevertheless, ideas like regenerative braking, for instance, are going to keep batteries in cars.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s a shame that previous generations didn’t start to care more about our dependence on oil, but it’s downright negligent for our generation to not do everything we can to diversify our sources of energy, research and develop more efficient methods and get them put in place as much as possible, as soon as possible. This is a serious issue that it seems far too few people actually care about. I hope that changes soon.
uh oh – what do we make of this:
” Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon synthetic gasoline with no carbon emissions”
http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promises-150-per-gallon-synthetic-gasoline-with-no-carbon-emissions/17687/
good = wean ourselves off of “foreign” oil
bad = no need for hybrid cars
ugly = MPG no longer really relevant in fact
what say youse guys?
Here is Similar Story
http://www.aaabuscharter.com/
In April 2008 the U.S. Geological Service issued a revised report that we had a source of oil larger than all foreign oil reserves combined. An area, called The Bakken, has massive reserves estimated at 503 billion barrels of prime light, sweet oil.
Also, hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains, is the largest untapped oil reserve in the world, more than 2 trillion barrels. On Aug. 8, 2005, President Bush mandated its extraction, but despite 3 1/2 years of high oil prices, no extraction has begun.