No matter what country you live in, most citizens would probably agree that "energy independence" would be a good thing for their country. It conserves foreign exchange. It protects one from "shocks" and policitical blackmail. It enhances national security in times of crisis.
Today's choices:
Coal. The U.S. has huge reserves of coal. This is not as clean-burning as natural gas. It produces more green house gases than other enegy sources because it is mostly carbon. Natural gas has a higher proportion of hydrogen. It cannot be put into cars, although there are expensive processes that can be used to convert coal to synthetic fuels. It pollutes the air. Few in the public are aware that burning coal releases much more radiation into the air than nuclear power does.
Natural Gas. Reserves are limited. Additional reserves are actively being sought, but the drilling industry has to come back from a glut of supply in the 80's that drove most of the gas exploration business out of business. Most power plants built since then use natural gas because it is cleaner and therefore easier to permit. There are efforts underway to build LNG (liquified natural gas) ports in the U.S. The U.S. is very very late to this party. Japan imports huge qunantities of LNG and has long term contracts with numerous suppliers. Obviously, if you are importing LNG, you are not improving your energy independence.
Wind. The early wind turbines are not very efficient. This is definitiely an area where scale counts. Very large wind turbines capture wind energy more efficiently. Their greater mass provides sufficient inertia that they can generate power between gusts, and the bigger stronger turbines built today can withstand very high winds and keep producing power from them. The lower vane velocity of the very large wind turbines reduces the bird kills. Smaller turbines kill many birds, which is an ecological issue that is harmful for consensus. One cannot use wind generation for base load. Even the better sites probably only provide power production of 40 percent of the hours in a year. The most modern turbines are built by a Danish company.
Solar. There is currently a shortage of solar panels. This area is expanding greatly. This offers a form of power that can be widely distributed. Distributed power networks have advantages. Right now, solar power is roughly a break-even proposition, because the payback for most systems is about equal to their life expectancy. Some new options are starting to come available, but advances in manufacturing methods and materials science are still needed. Federal funding in materials science greatly benefited the U.S. in the 70's and 80's and needs to be expanded. Solar is probably more limited than wind in useable hours of power production per year. The sun not only has to shine, but it has to be unblocked by clouds.
Hydroelectric. Most of the dam sites have dams. High dams have incurred ecological costs, including destruction of salmon fisheries. Some dams are silting up at a rapid rate, either due to deforestation in their watersheds, or in the case of the arid southwest, as a consequence of the natural sediment load of their river systems. There is little potential for increasing energy from hydroelectric sources.
Geothermal. Geothermal power is largely untapped. There is huge potential. It is largely outside public awareness, so much so that it was not even considered in the original energy bill passed by congress. Most of the prospective geothermal fields are in the western states. It depends upon drilling technology. Environmental risks include potential contamination of ground waters (some geothermal aquifers are not potable). The geothermal industry would benefit from advances in drilling technology and material sciences (hot salty waters are extremely corrosive).
biofuels: The ecomonics of these is questionable, except in cases where the source is a byproduct. For example, it is economically viable to produce power from animal waste, albeit barely. Using tractors and fertilizer to grow crops to extract sugar and ferment into alcohol, is more of a way to subsidize farmers and enrich companies like Archer Daniel Midlands, than to make an impact on energy independence. This is probably the most over-hyped 'solution' to energy independence.
tar sands: tar sands are going to help with Canada's energy independence. It is profitable if oil costs more than $40/barrel. It takes a lot of natural gas and water to extract oil from tar sands. That natural gas is gas that won't be piped to the U.S. Look for natural gas prices to stay high.
nuclear: Most of the expansion in nuclear power will take place at existing plants because the permitting process is just about hopeless. Nobody but nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. The economics is somewhat uncertain but this is a very clean source of power that has powered most of western Europe safely for decades, allowing them the benefits of electric trains and the ability to sign the Kyoto accord without worrying about devastating their economies. The U.S. on the other hand, seems to have a panic attack on anything having to do with radiation. In Europe, they irradiate food, such as chickens, to preserve it. They irradiate sewage to kill pathogens in it. Even there is zero radiation from the items irradiated, the U.S. shuns this like it has cooties. The issue of waste is not being dealt with very forthrightly. Reprocessing is one way of reducing reactor waste. Waste disposal, given the very long decay times, would best be done in midocean trenches. These subduction zones are the earth's bottomless pits. Tubes of waste dropped at such sites would immediately penetrate thousands of feet below the seafloor mud and then be subducted to hundreds of miles into the earth's crust over millions of years. Stuff dropped there is not coming back. But disposal at sea is banned by international treaty, as if all places on the 3/4 of the earth that are covered by seawater are equally risky. Another triumph of politics over science.
fusion. this is how the sun works. you take light elements, the lighter the better, such as hydrogen, and combine them at the pressure and tempertures that exist inside a star. The hydrogen combines to produce helium and a lot of energy, in the form of some rather powerful radiation. This is nuclear energy on steroids. The problem is that it is not very easy to compress hydrogen enough to make it fuse. If it can be perfected, the power source becomes hydrogen electolytically extracted from water. There are oceans of waters. This would create a new era of virtually unlimited power. Perfecting this technology might take 20 years, or 200. Funding basic science could hasten the day, but there is no guarantee when the needed scientific and technological breaktrhough could be attained to make this a viable source of power.
Not all fuels are equal. People are most concerned about what they can put into the fuel tank for transportation. The internal combustion engine has only been in widspread use for a couple hundred years and it may be time to start thinking about moving on to something else. Given a good electric power transmission system (the one in the U.S. today may seem good, but it really is pretty rudimentary, only good relative to the rest of the world, not that good compared to what it could be), it should be possible to expand the role of other fuels by using electric transmission to power motors. All the trains in South Africa run on electric power. Most of the power comes from coal plants. Other sources would probably degrade the environment less.
What role should the government play? I believe the role is limited by the funds it can provide. The most benefit might be obtained by funding reserach and development, and developing test areas, such as electrified roadways and super high-speed trains (these would need to run in tubes maintained in a partial vaccuum). Certainly great benefits can also be made by legislation and tax law that favor energy conservation; if you burn less, you buy less. An educational role, like that which has been done for smoking, might encourage the citizenry to embrace conservation as fashionable. This already seems to be taking hold with the use of hybrid cars.
You may note that I have left out the obvious energy source of petroleum. It has obvious advantages and disadvantages and I leave to others the discussion of drilling in areas currently not permitted for drilling. I believe this could be done in an environmentally friendly and culturally acceptable fashion, but I do not believe the industry track record has been good. Perhaps if the bonds posted and the companies selected for such work are carefully selected on a basis other than the high bidder or who they know, this could be done. The oil in those places is not going anywhere; it will still be there to extract. The question is are we ready to extract it in a way that all can see as acceptable.
I say we force congress to change the laws regarding how any internal combustion engine is tested; namely the visual inspection. If someone buys a car or a diesel tractor or D9 bulldozer, I say let him or her alter the engine with aftermarket products to make it more efficient. Wouldn’t it be great if the product emitted the same or less emissions after the alteration?
This kind of attitude can be applied to a whole host of other manufactured products. It should be legal to make something more efficient.
Duh!
I have three thoughts I'd like others to ponder and comment on.
1) Oil is used for more than gasoline. Ever hear of plastic? One can go all day without using one drop of gas. Get through the day without plastic. Chances are, as soon as your alarm clock goes off, you have failed in that task!
2) Oil is a fossil fuel. There is a limited supply. What do we do when it is gone?
30 The technology for exploiting oil was developed primarily by the US. It was the vehicle that propelled our country into its current economic position internationally. We are now nearing the end of the oil age, what nation will lead the world in developing new, ecological sound fuel sources? Are we as a nation determined to maintain our current position technologically?
I whole heartily agree with you. My uncle bought a Mercedes/Dodge Sprinter and wanted to convert to bio fuel but the warranty on the engine would have been null and void.
I might decide to run my car on a mixture of acetone, methanol, and water. This would work for a while, but the engine would not last as long. So I kind of see the point about voiding warranties that are based on equipment being used in a certain way. It might be unreasonable to expect that if you modify equipment and it breaks down or wears out quicker because of the modifications you made, that someone should fix it for you for free.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch
A first easy step in improving the energy position of the US is to just do what other countries have done. Move to diesel technology. The following example will clarify the issue:
1) Take any American car, pick-up or SUV. Remove the V8 or V6 gasoline engine and put in a modern 4 or 5 cylinder common-rail turbo-diesel engine of equivalent performance. Fit it with a particle filter exhaust. Buy modern clean-burning diesel fuel. You get a 25% increase in miles per gallon.
2) Now that we have an efficient motor, take the same car again, remove the automatic gear box. Put in a standard 6 speed gear box (ah, what's that other pedal for again......) and you get another 15% to 30% increase in mileage depending on model and manufacturer.
Your car just went from 24mpg to close to 40mpg with no increase in pollution and no decrease in performance. You just cut your monthly fuel bill by 50%.
Vehicals with this type of configuration now make up the majority sold around the world EXCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES. Most disappointing is the fact that GM, Ford, and Chrysler sell great cars in Europe with modern diesel technology which are not available in the US. Go figure.
As Mercedes, VWs, Volvos, Audis, Skodas, Saabs, Peugeots, Renaults, Fiats, Alphas, Citroyens, Hondas, Opals, Nissans, and BMWs all run just great with diesel motors, I would guess so will American vehicals.
Modifying James Carville's phrase from the Clinton campaigne - "IT'S THE CARS, STUPID !!!!!"
Sketch's article did a great job of outlining the various alternatives to petroleum. With the Scientific minds available in ths Country the President could put out a 10-20 year challenge to Academia & Industry to come up with some concrete answers and a plan to implement them, we could make it happen.
Instead of having the president to a call to industry and academia .. how about WE elect a president with scientific credentials. The age of electing lawyers and real estate developers to office is over. Even the current president with a MBA from Harvard fails to see a govermental bureaucratic meltdown of mega proprotions.
Glen, you're right on the money! I would also add a speed governor (sp?) at the speed limit + some margin. First, this would improve fuel economy on its own.
Also, part of the attraction of the big gas guzzlers is the perception of safety. Keep cars of all sizes traveling at about the same speed, and accidents decrease, reducing one of the "justifications" for a big vehicle.
Now, if only we could do someting about drivers' skills...!
I heard recently that people buying Hybrids are figuring out how to charge them at home from the power grid, and getting 150 miles of daily driving in without using the gas tank, and still having the range when they need it for road trips.
That begs the question: how much does each type of electric plant pollute, in order to charge a Hybrid car and therefore save some equivalent pollution from the gas engine? I suspect the answer will be no surprise at all, but it might drive consensus on the issues faster.
Oil depleation is a worldwide problem and requires a worldwide solution. Oil is not yet a Crises and we have time to discuss the future of Earth, without cheap oil.
The U.S. has assumed the role of World leadership and chosen to set an example for other countries. The sad part is that other countries are entering their industeral revolution with a demand for more energy and a higher standard of living. This forces them to reject any thought of conservation until it becomes a CRISIS.
Political intervention will only delay the World's ability to adjust. Look at the number of restrictive laws and taxes that discourage a free market approach to finding a solution.
Politicians seldom make decisions, they make compromises, that is to say Half assed decisions.
This is a issue for the U.N. not just one country, so do what we can while keeping the U.S. competitive, hopping all the while that Earth dosen't become another Easter Island.
Importing oil and gas will eventually destroy our already fragile economy. Our $60 Billion monthly deficit in international trade is mostly due to energy imports not tee shirts and underwear.
We must develop the political will to use all available means to utilize our own resources as enumerated by Sketch in his comprehensive email of June 8.
We have to overcome the illogical environmentalists who worry more about caribou, snails, and owls rather than the fact that China and India will have tens of millions of automobiles running in the next ten years. What will be the price of oil then?
"We have to overcome the illogical environmentalists who worry more about caribou, snails, and owls rather than the fact that China and India will have tens of millions of automobiles running in the next ten years. What will be the price of oil then?"
I have to take issue with that statement. Yes, there are some who think that we can just all walk or ride a bike everywhere, and that there should be no trade off to maintain a modern lifestyle, however, we must value ALL life on this planet and not just HUMANS. Better to lower our expectations of driving everywhere all of the time, conserve, walk or ride when you can (if nothing else, for the exercise), expand more efficient means of transportation and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for transportation once and for all.
After all, doesn't wildlife have just as much right to live on this planet as we do, and more so than our automobiles?
If we put the national will to achieving energy independence with the same dedication that we put into the space program, we'd have it done in ten years.
The technical challenges are there, no question. But we're GOOD at that. What we're not so good at is organizing things that don't have an immediately visible profit, with the emphasis there on "immediately". What our government could do, that private sources won't and/or can't, is to support the basic research for things like fusion technology.
Other things are basic reality checks, such as mentioned by Glen (yes, the standard transmission IS more fuel efficient, Virginia!) and raising CAFE standards to reflect reality (minivans are family cars, not business trucks.)
I also suspect that if the big energy companies were given tax incentives to develop alternatives, we might see some surprising developments coming from that quarter!
(P.S.: To Global Traveler: "Now, if only we could do someting about drivers' skills"...(lol!) You've lived on Guam, too?)
When any market item begins to effect national security it must be "in a sense" taken over by the federal government and regulated as the association with the foreign elements of the market now effect national security...
If the executive would execute and not try and manipulate congress and morale issues... and if the congress would focus on creating clear legislation instead of worrying about executive policies... and if the supreme court would get off their lazy rears and claim constiutional violations! And get both back to doing their jobs and stop manipulating the other two branches of government! Wake up Supreme Court... you do have responsibility here!
Oil crisis "as we know it" is a hoax... we have untapped oil reserves equal second to none in the Southwest desert... the largest producing oil well in America is located in Nevada... the only reason we ship oil from halfway around the world when we can get it locally is obvious... to preserve the kings and dictators in the middle east that should have been gone years ago... without oil they would fall quickly... just like China would shake if we dared flex our trade muscle and begin a Made In America Label campaign once again!
“Made In America Label campaign once again?” That’s delusional. We buy manufactured products from China from it is cheapest to buy them from there. China’s not going to shake until a different part of the world can manufacture our products for us at a lower price.
We will tap the oil in Nevada and further off the Gulf Coast when the Middle East starts running dry, the price of oil goes up, and its worth out while to do so.
Oil will be replaced when it becomes too expensive. And with China’s thirst for it rising, it will be within our lifetimes. The question is: which world economy will benefit from the technology of its replacement.
"Oil will be replaced when it becomes too expensive?" Too expensive for whom? I am a school teacher, and I find that oil (gasoline) is far too expensive right now. And I don't see it being replaced any time soon. Ladies and gentlemen, oil prices are dictated by one thing and one thing only. It has nothing to do with availability or demand. It has to do with how much money the good (BEST) friend of the President of the United States, the prince of Saudia Arabia wants to make today. Before he gets out of office, the two will have consorted to have the price over four dollars a gallon. The answer to the energy crisis is the people of the United States. Us. Together. Unified.
Mike,
Oil/gasoline was going up in spring and down in fall long before Bush became president. The reason for this is that there isn't any more competition (remember the gas wars). It's controlled by the few big oil companies! This used to be against the law but Congress has failed again and we will pay the price.
The issue is that this is a two stage problem. The first stage is the next 20 - 30 years. Any technology that will be usable passed that point hasn't been developed well enough to be commercially feasible. It will take that long to design and impliment into the general public market. The second stage is a commercially feasible technology fully implimented into society.
If we don't do something to insure that oil is available at a reasonable cost our economy and way of life will die. People on fixed incomes are already fealing the pinch from the $3.00 a gallon price at this time. We need to open up our national oil fields so we can insure supply. We also need to build some refineries or make a national standard for the gasoline ingrediates (sp) so that areas with gasoline surplusses can sell their supplies in areas that have shortages. 48 different blends is absurd. Another benefit of this idea is we will starve our enemies.
Isn't oil also the origin for many pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and plastics?
Won't corn (ethanol) get expensive when we are all burning it in our cars?
Looks like we are on a slippery slope.
The presidency requires a different skill set from that of the scientist. Most scientists are poor communicators outside of their area of study. Many in America look on science with suspicion, and the sterotypes for those working in science incude nerds, wise-guys, evil criminal masterminds, and absent-minded professors completely out of contact with the problems of everyday life. I don't think nominating someone devoted to science is a good idea, nor do I think someone really devoted to science would be interested in being president, with the exception of what some people call the "soft" sciences, such as sociology, psycology, economics.
However, it would be nice to have a president that respects science. The Bush administration has a very poor track record with regards to science. It supresses scientific reports that provide information that it would then be pressed to act upon. It sacrifices scientific investigations in favor of propaganda (the international space station, manned-exploration of mars, instead of repairing/replacing the Hubble telescope and the solar observer satellite, are two examples) and it actively opposes some areas of scientific investigation on moral grounds. The level of animosity between the scientific establishment and the executive branch has probably never been higher than it is now.
I for one hope for presidential candidates that will listen to their scientific advisors and use the findings of the science to guide their decisions rather than relying their religous convictions.
I wonder why we don't create a NASA like program to develop the technology for a cheap, clean, renewable energy source. This is exactly the type of challange Americans are great at undertaking and overcoming.
Since the R&D is funded and owned by Americans, we should license the technology to private industry to develop and produce in order to recover the research costs.
America should be a net supplier of energy technology to the world.
Yes, the single most productive well in the U.S. is presently located in Railroad Valley in Nevada. The level of production in a well has more to do with the pressure of the oil in the rock formation than it does with the size of the oil field. The Railroad Valley field is not a 'supergiant field', nor even a giant. Giant fields are large; this makes them easier to find (not easy, but easier). There probably are no undiscovered supergiant fields in North America, although there is a remote chance that some very large fields will be discovered at greater depths. The renascense of Mexico petroleum production was a consequence of drilling deeper in areas that had been previously exploited, but had only recovered oil from shallower reservoirs. U.S. oil production is in steep decline, as is UK production.
The following is from a paper by Simmons, www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/giantoilfields.pdf
There are over 4,000 actively producing oilfields in the world. These fields produce 68 million barrels a day of crude oil from almost one million individual wells. Most of these oilfields are relatively small. The average field produces less than 20,000 barrels per day. Three percent of these oilfields make up almost half of this output.
Approximately 120 giant oilfields in the world produce 100,000 barrels a day or higher. In total, these fields produce in excess of 32 million barrels a day, or 47% of the world’s total supply. Even within this tiny tip of the world’s oilfields, half of these 120 giant fields barely exceed the minimum 100,000 barrel per day production parameter that I have used to define a giant oilfield. The 62 smallest of these “giant fields” account for 12% of the world’s daily oil supply. In contrast, the fourteen largest account for over 20%. The average age of these 14 largest fields is 43.5 years.
Around 20 other new giant fields now discovered, but yet to begin producing, are each expected to exceed 100,000-barrel per day output. However, no new field now being developed is projected to have daily production in excess of 250,000 barrels. In sharp contrast, the world’s 19 largest “old giant fields” still produce an average over 500,000 barrels per day, in spite of an average age of almost 70 years.
Most of the world’s true giant oilfields were found decades ago. In the past two decades, most oil and gas discoveries have been quite small fields. Occasionally a new billion-plus barrel oilfield is announced. But even these “giant” finds tend to be tiny, in terms of daily production, compared with the giant fields found 50+ years ago. The last four oilfields found with a productive capacity that exceeded one million barrels a day were China’s Daquing field discovered in 1959, Western Siberia’s Samotlor in 1965, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay in 1968 and Mexico’s Cantarell field in 1976. After Cantarell, no new field has come close to this one million barrels a day production level. Only a small group of fields found post 1980 have ever produced 500,000 barrels per day, and many of these new giants are now nearly depleted.
My biggest surprises of this study were first, how difficult it was to even obtain data on current production rates. Second, how critically important this relatively small population of oilfields still is to the world’s total oil supply. Third, how old many of these fields are particularly the largest of these fields. Fourth, the total lack of good data on the decline rates for almost all of these giant fields. My last surprise was the consistently smaller size of each new generation of giant fields.
---------
You can go to the site and obtain the details. The picture that emerges is that smaller fields are found and developed. No one has found a supergiant in many decades. This suggests there are few left to find.
There are likely additional oil and mineral resources to be found in North America, including the southwest. One of the limitations placed on exploring for these was done by the Clinton-Gore administration, who placed thousands of square miles of federal lands in the western U.S. off-limits to exploration. This was done as a sop to the environmental movement. This alienated those involved in mineral and energy production; probably not many with careers in those fields supported Gore. This was no sinister plot, just the usual politics of placing keeping any messiness involved with meeting the needs of American's lifestyles out of view; like the ban on oil derricks off Florida's coastline within view from shoreline hotels. Better data needs to be collected so more informed choices can be made. This is something the CIA could easily do.
There is a federally funded report that is now commonly referred to as the 'Hirsch report', actual title is "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management". A more recent abridged version is titled "The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production". links:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
http://www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/Documents/FedResponse/HirschReport2.pdf
There is a compilation of estimates on when the peak in world oil production will occur. Estimates vary from 2024 to later than 2024. Many estimates are around 2024, four years from now.
From the Hirsh report:
A recent analysis for the U.S. Department of Energy addressed the question of what might be done to itigate the peaking of world oil production. Various technologies that are commercial or near ommercial were considered:
1. Fuel efficient transportation,
2. Heavy oil/oil sands,
3. Coal liquefaction,
4. Enhanced oil recovery,
5. Gas-to-liquids.
It became abundantly clear early in this study that effective mitigation
will be dependent on the implementation of mega-projects and mega-changes at the maximum possible rate. This finding dictated the focus on currently commercial technologies that are ready for implementation. New
technology options requiring further research and development will undoubtedly prove very important in the longer-term future, but they are not ready now, so their inclusion would be strictly speculative.
A scenario analysis was performed, based on crash program implementation worldwide – the fastest humanly possible. Three starting dates were considered:
1. When peaking occurs;
2. Ten years before peaking occurs; and
3. Twenty years before peaking.
The timing of oil peaking was left open because of the considerable
differences of opinion among experts. Consideration of a number of implementation scenarios provided some fundamental insights, as follows:
•Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program
action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
•Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil
peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
•Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.
Effective mitigation will be dependent on the implementation of
mega-projects and mega-changes at the maximum possible rate.
----------
The U.S. has abundant supplies of coal. This is fortunate from an energy dependence standpoint but may be unfortunate in terms of world greenhouse gas emissions. China also has abundant coal and is greatly increasing production and consumption of coal. Greatly increasing coal burning may have the unintended consequence of environmental degradation.
I know we would all like to see the "good times roll". The best way to do that may be to show some vision and work on solutions to the problems that the consensus of scientific inquiry report are approaching; even if one remains unconvinced that the problem is going to be severe, surely the reports of many scientific investigations are sufficient for most to concede a risk is present. Given the very long lead times necessary to adjust to these changes, certainly doubters would concede some level of effort is necessary. Most people purchase insurance although they are fairly certain they are not going to die, or have their house burn down, anytime soon.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch
It is true that “Bio Diesel” could only replace 20-30% of our oil dependence and might be a “dirtier” source of power at that. [That “Bio Diesel” (in it’s many forms) is “Current Carbon” probably makes this OK from a Global Warming perspective, but doesn’t make the pollution any easier or healthier for me to breathe.] However, a bank of Solar Cells (or other efficient Solar Collectors) on the roof of every home and building would not only power the home/business and charge batteries for night use (as well as cloudy days) but also sell power back to the Grid on most days. Such a System could charge your electric/gas vehicle over night as well. This Technology already exists and is implement able today. Its benefits include: a distinct reduction in Green House Gasses from both the Consumer Automobile and the Electric Generation Plant; Energy Independence; and new jobs and opportunities in the development of this Base Technology. If our Federal Government put serious money into Research around these Technologies they could easily move from Possible to Economically Preferable.
Gary:
I ran up some numbers on my own house and published them on another thread. The cost of installing sufficient photovoltaic panels to satisfy my electrical need would be almost $50,000. And that's after state and federal rebates.
You can see the results at http://unity08.com/node/91#comment-3162
Current technology is not cost effective and would have to achieve efficiencies at least an order of magnitude higher before they reach that level.
I agree that additional research could/might/better find more effective solutions. Whatever it is, it needs an ROI that's less than 30 years.
While R&D might be part of the overall energy/environmental focus, is this "middle enough" to warrant inclusion?
Hey, just found this site. It's great that someone in this country is finally stepping up to the plate on fixing the American election process.
Anyway, my family owns three hybrids: a Lexus RX400h(Father), a Toyota Prius(Mother), and a Honda Civic(Myself). I can honestly tell y'all that my Civic can go about 380 miles on one tank, and it only costs about $25 to fill it up. A typical SUV would cost about twice as much.
So if more Americans start driving cars like the Civic or Prius, or even just buy hybrid versions of SUVs, think of the dent that would make in OPEC's profits!
The problem with alternative fuels like hydrogen and ethanol is that those energy sources aren't available to the vast majority of Americans right now. The only remedy for the problem right now is the hybrid car. Until alternative fuels are available, it's our best bet.
Here's a link for anyone who would like to learn more about hybrids.
www.hybridcars.com
Rudy Giuliani spoke at the Manhattan Intitute yesterday, pushing for elimination of the governmental red tape that has held back construction of new nuclear plants for almost 30 years. From the Washington Post:
"Giuliani said nuclear power has had a remarkably safe track record despite lingering concerns about the accidents at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear plants in the 1970s and 1980s.
He urged governors and state legislators to make it easier for nuclear power plants to get operating permits."
Cheap, clean nuclear power can be a big part of promoting energy independence and even cleaning up auto emissions, if the new plug-in hybrids catch on.
It is absurd that in 2024 Americans rely so heavly on foreign
fuel sources. We need a leader to take the John Kennedy approach to energy independence. Put our best team of scientist together like NASA to become completely independent in 10 years. Then sell our technology to private industry within the United States taxed heavily to help reduce our Natioal Debt.
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Office is trying to figure out how to design a warning system that will be an effective warning for people living 10,000 years from now. 10,000 years!
Yosemite Valley was formed by glaciers 10,000 years ago. An ice age was ending. People were using stone tools. Say there isn’t ANOTHER accident at Three Mile Island within our lifetimes, we are not equipped to store the waste.
This Saturday, 17 June 06 will see the start of the annual 24 sport car race at Le Mans France. As happens regularly, an Audi will be in pole position at the start of the race. In fact they are in 1st and 2nd position.
The interesting fact this year is that both these Audi sport cars are powered by the TDI diesel motor. (See my comments on diesel technology and fuel efficiency below - June 10th). This same TDI technology powers the majority of VWs, Audis and Skodas sold world wide.
Why is this important? Easy - If the fleet of cars in the USA had the same average MPG as the European fleet, we wouldn't need to talk about the Koyoto accords. We would already be in compliance.
Go ask Ford or GM why you can't by the same fuel efficient cars in the USA that they sell in Europe.
IT'S THE CARS STUPID!!!!
ANetliner:
Excellent topic for discussion and lead post is much appreciated.
On the area of biofuels or biomass:
There have been very encouraging developments in the gasification of agricultural and other waste, I hear. New firms are beginning to develop scalable gasification technologies that produce clean fuel within small areas.
The premise: produce energy by turning trash or other waste into clean-burning gas with minimal residue.
This approach would be useful in both urban and rural areas, as gasification can be used with urban trash and agricultural waste.
Additional venture capital is needed, but indications are promising.
Energy R&D to develop alternative fuels is urgently needed and could help to promote economic growth and domestic jobs.
Your Characterization of Fusion is incorrect. A major DEMONSTRTATION project called ITER has been slowly (starved for funds of course) been emerging to produce the first Fusion Reactor that generates power. A multi-country consortium ITER should be up and running in 2024.
Energy Efficiency is both left off your list and a key element in any effective plan to get the US energy independent. Note that efficiency is not conservation (although they can be co-operative)it is quite possible to for instance increase fuel efficiency without degrading performance- witness the Honda Accord Hybrid.
Indeed high efficiency is the handmaiden of alternative energy sources as any one living off the power grid on Solar and Wind Power will readily tell you. Their appliances, lighting etc. are all special high efficiency products in order to be compatible with the modest alternative energy sources they adopted.
Diesal! I live in europe and that is almost the only car you can rent over here. I have driven 600 miles on one tank of fuel. Great handling and acceleration. We can make it out of soybeans (bio-diesal). The technology has made it cleaner than gas for emissions. I'd rather have US farmers driving cadillacs from the soybean money than giving it to people that hate us (Hugo Chavez for one).
I do not think there is one magic bullet that will solve the energy problem, but a number of things, each helping out. SUV's: They are legal through a loophole in the law making them light trucks. They ain't trucks. Make them a car for EPA standards.
Alternative fuels. Gas/alcohol mix. Mileage not as good, but again, let's recycle our money spent on energy within our own economy as much as possible.
Nuclear power. No one is more environmentally sensitive than the Europeans, the population density is beyond most american's comprehension. They use nuclear power in a large way. I think we are at least as smart as they are.
Wind, geothermal, solar, none are THE solution, but in the right place can help as well. I would not want solar power if I lived in alaska (or at least not as my ONLY source of power), but I am adding a geothermal system to my retirement house being built in Virginia.
Our political powers are tied to the petroleum industry. Eisenhower warned of the growing power of military industrial complexes. We all know we would not be so concerned about the freedom of the Iraqui people if their major product was coconuts.
Has our military become a surrogate defender of Big Oil? I hope not. I really do.
Brad
There is a potential for tremendous hydroelectric power from properly designed subartic dams. AS the Canadians and Norwegians have demonstrated in the subartic high flow watersheds permit large power production (with some winter lower yields) without damage to watersheds and fish runs.
What is missing of course is a practical way to bring such massive energy sources to the population centers that lie well to the south.
Hydrogen storage and lossless power transmission provide an answer to the best way to sane and environemtnally sound use of these potential resources.
This post is in response to Brad’s comment “Our political powers are tied to the petroleum industry.” That is true, but I think it is an understatement. Our entire way of life is tied to the petroleum industry. Without all those trucks full of food rolling across our highways, we’d starve, literally. Walking to work is a luxury I’ve enjoyed only a few years of my life. Our society has been built for the past 50 years to run on wheels. And at the moment, those wheels need gas. Lots of gas.
I can’t blame the powers that be for petroleum being high on the priority list.
I expect them to see that the oil keeps flowing into this country. And for the same reasons, I expect them to work out what we replace it with.
In order to go beyond carbon based fuels we need enormous olitical will and the government sposorship in dollars to back up truly new technologies.
In fact we won't pay the piper and there is no electorate in the world with the backbone to make this commitment.
So we will be burning carbon, making carbon dioxide and warming the earth for at least the next 50 years barring some inventors breakthrough.
On to Mars! Now there is an electorate really committed to alternative fuels that would give anything to be able to burn carbon and warm their world.
Did anyone see Meet the Press Sunday with 3 big oil CEO's on with Tim Russert. They claim the biggest problem is Supply. They also surprisedly all agreed we need more cars that get better mileage. That could reduce Demand by 20% a year. The 85%ethanol mix gets about 25% worse mpg than the 10% mix presently used. The best bet for the next 30 years are the tar-sands of Alberta and Colorado. After 30-50 years alternative energy sources could play an important role. They also claim they are reinvesting all their profits in new exploration, I imagine that can be checked out through SEC reports.
Saw the Russerts Meet the talking heads on Sunday.
Their biggest point was efficiency not just in the automotive sector.
Efficient Power Distribution is a very big part of the solution. See LossLess Power Grid, see Shoutbox entry in the Energy Section,
Never was a oil crisis... think for a moment, why would we ship oil all the way around the world if you could dig it up in this country? Maybe to keep dictators in power... expansionism... no it must be to preserve our enviornment while we destroy someone elses... whatever reason it is not cost effective!!!!! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I share the previous writers' concerns with our energy situation. The perspective I offer is that the time for independence has long ended. We are an interdependent world. There is not one self-sufficient nation on earth. Nor in my opinion should there be. It is our interdependence that will facilitate world peace.
As for our energy needs, a 10% reduction in fuel consumption would eliminate the discussion. It is more than just a nation on wheels, it is a nation continuing to use its best engineers to discover new ways to consume more fossil fuels. Every year I see new fossil fuel powered technology sweeping across the nation. Do we really need more gasoline powered leaf blowers at the cost of drilling into pristine wilderness areas?
Here is a rather unique idea that I had which encourages the purchase of more efficient vehicles. Here is how it would work:
All gas stations would be required to place cameras which read the license plate of the vehicle fueling up. The gas station would link to a vehicle registration database made available by all states. Depending on the type of vehicle, the federal and state gas tax would vary. If the vehicle was more efficient then the tax would be less, and if it was less efficient the tax more.
The camera idea and linking to a database is about the most cost-effective way to implement any kind of dynamic gas tax, aside from leaving it in the hands of possibly untrustworthy or apathetic gas-station employees to administer the appropriate level of gasoline tax.
This would reward those for buying more efficient vehicles, and also make it more economical to conserve.
Any Comments?
Matt Callaway
All sunshine and no rain make a desert.
Dynamic Gas Tax
mavsguy842 on June 23, 2024 - 11:45am
Does this apply to size of house ownership too? Or to the number of air miles you travel? or to what you are going to user fertilizer for? or how many commute trips or trips to the soccer field you take?
Why should someone else pay for your preferences?
Nearly all products or services that are available have prices that lower when you buy in bulk. People who buy in bulk receive a lower unit price than those who do not. That is how you can save money. Gasoline is the opposite. Because we (as a society) buy SO much oil/gasoline the price actually increases.
With gasoline, trying to use less is how you lower the price, not by buying more and more. This is a way to encourage those who try to save money by purchasing less. Also, the ones who need to save the most money are those who cannot afford ever-increasing gasoline prices. I think rewarding their attempts to lower their own fuel costs (and indirectly all of our fuel costs) isn't such a bad thing.
And I don't see how the idea was forcing someone else to pay for my preferences....I think that it is actually making them pay for their own preferences: ie choosing to drive fuel efficient vehicles or fuel inefficient vehicles.
How much you drive is not factored into the tax, only how efficient your vehicle is in relation to other vehicles.
Size of house ownership is not really comparable to this idea either. A small house that is poorly insulated could be much more wasteful than a large house with great insulation and efficiency. It is extremely difficult to rate home energy efficiency, while vehicles are already rated for their efficiency.
Anyways, this is just an idea...obviously not too developed. Thanks for responding. Anyone else?
Matt Callaway
P.S. What's up with people posting anonymously on here???
All sunshine and no rain make a desert.
re: re: Dynamic Gas Tax
mavsguy842 on June 23, 2024 - 1:04pm
I can see that your a product of our public schools so let me make it simple. When you put a Tax on my choices to subsidize yours, it's called stealing or theft and when congress gets out of control and starts levying taxes for social engineering purposes, you the mess that we're currently in. The purpose of Unity08 is to unthread from this hodgepodge of accumulated bad legislation.
I won't tax you for your heating bills or your air miles.. and you dont tax me for my choice of vehicle which i need for my work and family. Simple and fair.
BTW: free market forces will reduce the quanity of petro products and bring gas prices into line .. just like it did in 1974, 1985, and 1992.
Matt, that's some interesting, creative thinking, and I applaud that.
The one advantage I see of your proposed idea is that a tax applied at time of purchase is only effective as new cars are purchased, and your dynamic tax would also penalize existing low mileage cars, too.
As a stand-alone proposal (and you didn't say it would have to be) I have 2 questions for you.
At what point do you want to incent people to buy a new, more fuel efficient car when the manufacture of the vehicle itself has an adverse impact? (Can you integrate that consideration into your tax construct?)
Also, do you want to tax the vehicle, or do you want to tax the use of a gallon of gas? Meaning, does it matter if a gallon of gas is burned in a Hummer or a hybrid?Existing Fed and State gas taxes already affect the Hummer owner more than the hybrid owner, but perhaps not enough!
As a follow-on to that question, my bias is to tighten CAFE requirements, because no matter the price/tax to be paid, there are a lot of people with a lot of money who believe they are entitled to whatever they can buy, without regard to consequences for others.
To rely strictly on a price or tax solution is going to hurt the middle and lower class families (and thus encounter strong political opposition) before it will ever change the behavior of the self-centered SUV owner.
1) Well, as far as incentives to a new vehicle purchase: In the long run - newer vehicles replace older ones...I don't see many vehicles which warrant an incentive for their purchase because our most efficient non-hybrid vehicles are still not very efficient. Any incentives would have to be worked out later, what are your ideas on this?
2)The Dynamic Gas Tax amount would depend on the type of vehicle. That is why there would need to be scanners which read license plate number and then checked a DMV database for vehicle type and tax code (which would correspond to a specific tax amount). This way, the tax on a gallon of gasoline would depend on the vehicle, not the number of gallons purchased. If you drive a hummer 20 miles/week, and a hybrid 2024 miles/week the tax focuses on how efficiently you drive each mile, not the number of miles driven. Driving more forces more purchases of gasoline, which, in itself, is a penalty for excessive driving.
Please keep the comments coming.
Matt Callaway
All sunshine and no rain make a desert.
Free market forces are not likely to bring gas prices down as before. On the demand side, the difference is the emergence of China, not only as manufacturer but also as consumer. India has also arrived on the consumer scene.
The increase in prices reflects the arrival on the scene of more than 2 billion people who were not factors in 74, 85 or 92.
There are also changes on the supply side. Leaders of Iran and Venezuela have interjected risk on the supply side. Uncertainty in commodities markets has a price.
A return to $25/barrel isn't going to happen without concerted changes in the world's largest economies. Sorry!
Sorry Anonymous!
Global Traveler on June 23, 2024 - 1:59pm
Free market forces will. They have historically and continue today. Billions of financial executions involving property, equities,commodies, options, insurance, and currency are transacted each day bringing equilibrium and true value to items of our choice. When any item becomes too expensive or cheaper alternative are available, behaviors change. People and business will purchase smaller transports or heating efficient real estate using productivity assessments for their motivation.. NO need for any government intervention. In addition, innovation driven technology will provides more cost effective solutions in direct correlation to the price of petro products. What you proposing is what carter did in the first gas crisis.. he rationed it and caused the economy to crash as well as 2 mile backups at the pump. Lets make that a lesson learned.
Hey keep it simple- raise the gas guzzler tax on all new cars, eventually the older cars will be replaced. The price of gas will continue to rise since we worry about pristine wilderness that few humans will ever visit. At least higher prices will reduce consumption ( of course that hurts the economically disadvantaged the most) but who ever accused environmentalists of caring about people's jobs.
Oil crisis is a hoax! To keep our middle eastern friends in power! We have untapped oil reserves in the Southwest, some estimates are that these reserves may be as big if not bigger than those found in the middle east... think for one second why would we ship oil around the world when we can dig it up here? It was to create a economy in the middle eastern desert where none existed before... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html