There He (Al Gore) Goes Again
Al Gore’s work to protect and preserve not only this country’s but the world’s natural environment has found a great many useful expressions. He is, in fact, the best-known spokesman in this realm.
Yet, for reasons that seem incomprehensible to me, he still seems to be missing the key point that could advance this end far more effectively—the fact that environmentally sound behavior is almost always now also economically sound behavior. That making “the hard choices between the environment and the economy” is a basically a 19th century view that should no longer has a place in the thinking of 21st century planners.
This strange failing was again heard in Gore’s recent comments about freeing the U.S. from dependence on petroleum by 2020. He said this “would cost trillions of dollars,” the kind of statement that makes it sound as if this money would take away from something else, lower living standards, be a kind of pot-latching to Mother Gaia.
No, Al. That kind of statement is just plain misleading. The trillions of dollars going toward this hoped for objective isn’t destroyed. It is invested in new infrastructure. It will not “cost the economy” anything, any more than money that went toward converting from a horse-drawn economy to a car-based economy “cost” our economy anything when it occurred in the early part of the last century.
Words are important in winning arguments. “Costs” is a bad word in the energy context. “Investment,” “new jobs in new industries with great export potential,” “savings on fossil fuel achieved through the use of renewable resources,” those are the good words and phrases that should always be employed.
We have been using the wrong words about the environment-economic interface far, far too long. Use the right wording and desirable policy shifts will occur much, much sooner.
[P.S. I was an environmental adviser to the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, and was saying this back then. And frankly, I feel it's really about time that folks in Washington finally got this stuff right!]
opinions powered by SendLove.to
40 Responses to “There He (Al Gore) Goes Again”
Show us your plan. Id love to see it.
The rightwing is very effective at turning the oil problem on it's head and calling for more drilling. I think opponents to drilling have to be ready with images of wildlife covered in oil spills and White House quotes about how the price of oil will be insignificantly affected by removing bans.
Also, maybe you knew this, but in Gore's address he said: “This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over. It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/07/gore_…
Right we should be ready for those evil people who want to drill and add oil to the already existing oil and bring prices down. However I would still like to see a plan that could convince me its even feasible to mutate this nation over to something else that will replace. OIL..
What will replace OIL? What????
Neocon,
I can imagine a whaler making similar comments a hundred plus years ago…
“We may be running out of Whales and their blubber to burn in our lamps, but I'd like you to convince me it's even feasible to move from a whale based system!”
“………..opponents to drilling have to be ready with images of wildlife covered in oil spills……”
And if there aren't any images, just make some up. It worked with melting glaciers.
Chris its a simple question. I read your TPM link and I think its doable to replace electricity with clean…..No problem but what about OIL.
What is out their to replace oil?
I think people fail to see the distinction between oil, gas, electricity and global warming. They lump it all into one, believe wind power will solve it all, lets move on to something else.
Neocon,
For what application?
Jwest,
http://images.google.com/images?q=exxon+valdez+…
Well what is oil used for.
You know like fueling cars. Kerosene. Diesel fuel. Jet Fuel. Industrial applications.
What is going to replace 23 million bbls a day of oil in Al Gores future America???
Electricity can power cars. Virgin airlines is starting to use biofuels in their jets. Plastic can be made from plant oils.
The fun thing about oil is that it's mostly burned to generate heat. There are lots of other things that we can burn in its place.
Well thats not a very convincing argument. Sorry gonna take more then that for me to agree to a 3 trillion dollar overhaul of our entire economy and do away with oil.
The liberals have the formula all worked out.
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math…
(see “then a miracle occurs”)
jwest,
And the Republican's dream of the future: http://buttercups.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/m…
I've put on a few pounds since that picture was taken.
It's a combination of Sixties B.S., a continued anti-progress mentality, largely dreams and inflated expectations, and a lot of misleading language, which would include the so-often-misused term “investment” when the truth almost every time is “expenditure.” If it's “research” or “research and development” you mean, then use those words.
“Use the right wording and desirable policy shifts will occur much, much sooner.”
What's desireable includes replacing dreams and politics with rationality and cost-benefit analysis of anything new, for starters. It includes an end to silly resistance to things like development of our oil, gas, and coal. It includes practical short-term things like research into converting coal into other hydrocarbons, including current transportation and other fuels. It includes an end to anti-nuclear idiocy and also the willingness to develop any remaining really good hydropower sites for new power plants. It includes research into fuel cells as well as wind, solar, and other alternative-energy sources but it does not include any foolish rush to assume these will quickly replace conventional energy sources, and it does not include vast new anti-progress, anti-industry crippling regulations or punitive measures directed toward the energy industry or motor vehicle owners or users; it does not try to forcibly engineer our economy and society to satisfy a few peoples' dreams, silly political objectives, or hatred of industry or the automobile.
DLS,
I just read an article today about how Nuclear power is still too expensive: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentanden…
And we need to start putting a price on the negative effects of burning fossil fuels. We should take this opportunity to engineer a cleaner world for ourselves. I don't want to be forced to spend my entire life indoors because of high temperatures and pollution.
False analogy with whale oil, Chris. And we aren't accusing all of you libs of demanding we go to walking, bicycling, and also back to the horse and buggy (though some romantic progressives probably include that in their dreams, too).
* * *
“Electricity can power cars.”
I'm afraid that's too superficial. Even if acceleration is great, range of electric vehicles and carrying capacity are laughable, and recharging time for the batteries is unacceptably long. The price for so many of these vehicles is unacceptably high, too. Alternatives must be equal (or close to it) or better, for the same (or close to it) or less cost. It must be practical (recharge everywhere on the road, not just at home). Electric vehicles fail these tests currently. They're fun toys and fascinating things (swift and silent), but electric vehicles are not a replacement for conventional motor vehicles, or aircraft, etc.
“Virgin airlines is starting to use biofuels in their jets. Plastic can be made from plant oils.”
What matters is what all the airlines do, not what one celeb does to make the news.
“The fun thing about oil is that it's mostly burned to generate heat.”
Yes, largely in internal combustion engines rather than to heat the inside of buildings. That's the problem.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html
“There are lots of other things that we can burn in its place.”
Most homes use gas. And that's the normal conversion made from heating oil.
With motor vehicles, you need something with comparable energy density to our current fuels (gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuels) at comparable costs. Stove pellets or wood or coal or cellulose isn't going to do it. Butanol, which can be made from cellulose, is great on paper and interests me, but the costs must still be brought down. See below. Consider this with something cheap like switchgrass but also produced cheaply and available everywhere for vehicles that can use this stuff with no equipment changes or other expensive concerns.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/global…
http://www.butanol.com/
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2008/F…
http://www.cobaltbiofuels.com/advancing-biofuel…
Look again at the earlier graph (provided again below). 96% of transportation uses petroleum products; 70% of petroleum products are used for transportation. That's where you have to find an alternative that is meaningful to be serious.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html
Also:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleu…
and
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreig…
It's an ugly situation, but alternatives have to make sense from the start.
Neocon, you need to start pushing that wildcat idea of yours harder, because it doesn't sound like even Bush is buying it. Or maybe he's just not aware of it. At any rate, he's looking for a magic wand like that.
Seriously though, by all means let's have more drilling. It probably won't have much effect on prices for quite a while, if ever, but as long as it can be done responsibly why not? Like you said, we're not going to wean ourselves off oil in a fortnight. And any domestic supply would help with the trade imbalance, improve our energy security, and provide domestic jobs.
In the mean time demand destruction seems to be working a bit. I understand that oil consumption is down 5% in the last month, relative to the same time last year. That represents a reduction of over a million barrels a day. Unfortunately, the reason demand is down is because people can't afford to buy the stuff. It would be nice to find a better way. One way is to gradually replace the existing transportation fleet with more fuel-efficient vehicles. Much to the dismay of the Big 3 automakers (who have gotten caught flat-footed once again), that is happening spontaneously. And when plug-in hybrids become available in 2-4 years I think it would be nice if some kind of innovative plan was in place to incentivize their adoption. I'd be in favor of that. Assuming an all electric range of 40 miles, and given that 70% of all driving is done within that range, that represents a huge demand reduction. Most of the big automakers (not including 2 of the Big 3, unfortunately) are planning to roll out plug-in hybrids sometime in 2010. Normally I don't listen too closely when I hear a company say, “we're 2-3 years away”, because that's usually code for “we're not particularly close and aren't sure when we will be”. But considering how crowded the plug-in hybrid bandwagon is getting and how big the players are, I'd say they really are getting close. 2010 might be a bit optimistic, but I think 2012 would be a safe bet. And when it happens, methods of electricity generation do become important.
Unfortunately, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels are still “2-3 years away”. But I guess it's comforting to know that more and more start-ups are transitioning away from pilot/demonstration scale and working on commercial scale plants. Sooner or later one of them is going to pull it off. Then hopefully it won't be too long after that before some of them make them cost-effective. Are you familiar with Craig Venter? He's one of those Really Smart People. And he says he'll have synthetic bugs that poop hydrocarbons in 18 months. The more you know about the guy the harder it is to bet against him. But still…
Anyway, that's my answer to your question, What will replace OIL? What????
“I just read an article today about how Nuclear power is still too expensive”
Thank you for that. I will read it. Current plant designs or the new next-generation designs? I have to see.
The big cost up front is why so many new plants are coal rather than nuclear.
Plus the political nonsense with waste is still with us. (To stop nuclear power, eventually, forbid transport and disposal of waste. it is crazy, but that'll do it.)
“And we need to start putting a price on the negative effects of burning fossil fuels. We should take this opportunity to engineer a cleaner world for ourselves. I don't want to be forced to spend my entire life indoors because of high temperatures and pollution.”
Global warming is hype. Real air pollution isn't. Lead is poisonous and long-term exposure to elevated lead levels obviously needed to be addressed by removing the element from motor vehicle fuels, as auto use is a major polluter in metro areas, where most people live. There was griping about this, but it was the right thing to do. (And anyone doubting the harm can just read about Herculaneum, MO, site of a lead smelter.)
Pollution reductions that are _sane_ of course can be sought beyond what there are in place now. That's actual reductions, not cap-and-trade game-playing. Taxes on the _real pollutants_ (not greenhouse gas nonsense) as detected as they are being used (periodic samples, etc.) make sense. But not political nonsense; no, no, no.
Perfect hydrocarbon combustion would yield carbon dioxide and water. This is the ultimate, the true ideal, something everyone should seek to get as close to as possible, not something to be avoided at all costs (!!!).
Chris — thanks, again. I went to that page and related ones. At least one commenter was stupid (values “The China Syndrome”) but the real point is that the costs to build the plants are rising to the point of being prohibitive. The guy who testified was aware that there are new modular designs with enhanced safety features (safety concerns have always been far out of proportion to what they really are) and i would like to see cost differences between these new designs and the old big designs, but the point was made.
And related to this, with wind as a cost-effective alternative, one of the other pages was truthful about the problems you'd find with wind produced in that “wind basket” as you saw on the wind resource maps. Namely, transmission:
“The main hurdle in ramping up wind power, I'd say, is building all those new transmission lines, which, as California's discovering, can be a huge headache. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently proposed a 150-mile transmission line that would've snaked through portions of a state park, and conservationists were outraged. Wind turbines can easily fall prey to NIMBY-ism, especially with the DOE suggesting that a wind-power push could entail up to 20,000 square miles worth of new turbines. (Interestingly, when I was reporting this piece on wind-power-mania in Texas, I was told that NIMBY-ism wasn't a big obstacle to offshore wind platforms there, since Texans were already accustomed to seeing hulking oil rigs out on the horizon.)
Meanwhile, both Texas and Denmark are learning that it can be rather pricey to expand the grid to handle all those new wind turbines coming on-line.”
“In the mean time demand destruction seems to be working a bit.”
It's also economic destruction in general and the last thing we need is a policy which deliberately engages in this.
An alternative to gasoline that interests me is butanol (bio-butanol, to be more precise, which would be fermented from renewable sources). I supplied links to some sites about this in a long reply to Chris a couple of postings above this one.
“Assuming an all electric range of 40 miles, and given that 70% of all driving is done within that range”
Not a good enough range. Many people live as much as 80-100 miles or more between home and work in places like California where homes remain priced outrageously (too) high. The same vehicle typically will be used for long inter-city trips, too. 300-400 mile range is better or say a minimum of around 250 miles. (That covers a lot of inter-city trips out of St. Louis, for example, and is a one-stop trip between the Big City Pair, SF-LA, as well as roughly nonstop between NYC and either Boston or Washington.) Recharging would be done on the road and should take no longer than 20-30 minutes, and really ought take no more than 5-10 minutes to be considered a serious alternative. It's fun to consider having a Daily Driver to handle all the short trips, but an electric car will have to substitute for a vehicle used in the general way Americans use them now to be a really good seller. Most of the time there's only one person in a vehicle (HOV nagging only annoys me; I've carpooled when it made sense, and normally have not) but one-seater vehicles aren't in demand and even two-seaters aren't sought as much as four-seaters, which is standard (four normal, six in a tight fit).
“And when [the plug-in hybrid] happens, methods of electricity generation do become important”
Not as much for pollution as you may think because many power plants are away from metro areas, but closer to people's minds will be the cost of that electricity.
Cheap hydropower like BPA's in the Northwest when I lived there led to people using electric home heating in many cases, which otherwise makes no sense (and doesn't even there, because it's inefficient, but when cheap hydropower is available, it's a possibility). Moreover, hydropower is clean as far as air pollution is concerned.
You hit upon a key component of why drilling is important. Reducing the trade deficit which is hurting the us economy in the price of the dollar.
Secondly there is too much fear in the market right now. The fact that the USA would be actively drilling for oil will assuage the market causing the prices to come down and allow Barak Obama to take credit for the end of the recession sometime in the middle of next year.
In addition Bush is not focusing on the wildcaters because no one else is either. Everyone is convinced that there is only OPEC and the big 5 in the oil bidness.
Not a good enough range. Many people live as much as 80-100 miles or more between home and work in places like California where homes remain priced outrageously (too) high.
And many dont. My guess is that if we could market 1 million cars a year they would sell. Everyone of them unless they were totally unreliable. But we will never know unless we get them out there and get them churning. Additionally we do need to have more wind coming on line to offset the increased demand plugging 1 million new cars per year would put on the grid.
See Im as green as the next guy. I just believe that Oil is our short term solution and that there is nothing to replace oil right now. Nothing. Thats why we need to get this drilling started………..TODAY
Coal and synthetic fuels derived from coal — evil coal, evil industry
http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/html/about.htm
http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/documents/011907…
http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/documents/022208…
http://www.euractiv.com/28/images/asfe_tcm28-15…
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/downloads/CTL_Broc...
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/downloads/DBChinac...
“My guess is that if we could market 1 million cars a year they would sell. “
They'd be fun toys _and_ they'd be okay for daily drivers or errand runners and be fun to watch. They'd probably be really popular in San Francisco, New York City, or Washington, DC, the few really vital, still-alive central cities that are popular with everyone and where parking is troublesome. If they were small enough we could go with diagonal (angled) or perpendicular parking along streets to permit many more vehicles to be parked, and therefore more likely to be used.
DLS: It's also economic destruction in general and the last thing we need is a policy which deliberately engages in this.
No kidding. Apparently you didn't appreciate that I was being snarky. But IMO, if we engage in a policy that features fossil fuels above all else, economic destruction is exactly what we will get. The dip in consumption represents the demand elasticity in the system. And in the summer months the elasticity is greater than other times, because of the increase in recreational driving. For the rest of the year prior to last month the demand was down 2%, which represents about 450,000 bbls/day. That's still quit a bit (in fact, more than the EIA estimated as the maximum yield from all of the OCS), and yet during that time oil prices shot up, not down.
An alternative to gasoline that interests me is butanol (bio-butanol, to be more precise, which would be fermented from renewable sources). I supplied links to some sites about this in a long reply to Chris a couple of postings above this one.
Certainly butanol is better than ethanol. Better energy density, less corrosive, not very soluble in water, easily transported in the existing infrastructure, and easily mixed with gasoline. Unfortunately, it's one of those things that is still “2-3 years away”.
With regard to plug-in hybrids, you seemed to gloss over the fact that an all electric 40 mile range would be sufficient for 70% of all driving needs. That's the all electric range, not the total range. After that the gas generator kicks in. It's a freakin' hubrid. It's not like you have to pull over to the side of the road when the battery discharges.
Obviously there will be some people who drive much further than that between long stays. And my advice to them would be… don't buy one. Go with one of them new-fangled diesels that are coming out. But 40 miles is plenty good for lots of people most of the time.
And yes, the first generation Li Ion batteries are likely to be expensive. One idea the manufacturers are kicking around is to have the customer lease the battery rather than buy it. Apparently the things have an esimated lifetime of about 150,000 miles for transportation use. But even after that they still retain something like 80% of their charge. So they can be used as power back-up sources on the grid for several more years before they are recycled (rather than dumped).
In terms of total electric vehicles, there is a group called Project Better Place, which is backed by Nissan and Renault, who propose a network of battery replacement stations. You drive your car up, pay a fee, exchange your discharged battery with a charged one, and drive off. Apparently the idea is catching on in Israel (where they originated), some places in Europe, and San Francisco is thinking about it for their municipal fleet (natch).
Neocon: You hit upon a key component of why drilling is important. Reducing the trade deficit which is hurting the us economy in the price of the dollar.
It seems to me that's the winning meme. The price argument is much more “iffy”. The things I mentioned are obvious, undeniable, and are 1:1 benefits rather than some smokey proportional thing.
Secondly there is too much fear in the market right now.
That's a very smokey, iffy, magicky meme. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But if I were Barak Obama (or John McCain, for that matter) I wouldn't count on it. Supply enhancement is ephemeral by its very nature. Prospective oil fields are just that — prospective. And real ones dry up eventually. On the other hand, demand destruction has lasting value — provided it doesn't occur on the shoulders of economic destruction.
Neocon: In addition Bush is not focusing on the wildcaters because no one else is either. Everyone is convinced that there is only OPEC and the big 5 in the oil bidness.
It sounds like you have your work cut out for you. Good luck. But I'll tell you one thing, to the extent that you can't come up any compelling documentation other than what's floating around in your head, the difficulty of your pursuit is greatly enhanced.
1. Gore was downright crazy this time:
“So today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years.”
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-17-voa51…
2.
“Oil is our short term solution”
Yes, for transportation in particular. To me the most practical short-term measure to boost our supply in addition to drilling would be to exploit our coal reserves to convert them into liquid fuels and also to gas and use them in that way. Synthetic fuels derived from coal are very clean-burning fuels. (I ignore the carbon-dioxide-obscessed environmentalist critics, who may also be as driven as they are to oppose this coal-to-liquids-and-gas stuff because it is so practical and sensible as well as logical.)
http://www.cleancoalfuels.com/cleancoalfuels_pr…
http://www.caer.uky.edu/catalysis/coal-to-liqui…
http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/RxsY3908kaqwVPacX…
http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/documents/101706…
http://www.worldcoal.org/assets_cm/files/PDF/wc…
http://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505…
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_…
“But IMO, if we engage in a policy that features fossil fuels above all else, economic destruction is exactly what we will get”
The problem is that we rely on oil and gas for transportation, and don't forget the big increase in heating our homes this winter. (I'm now in Michigan with a maritime effect that smoothes out the temperature curves even if it remains hot and humid often in summer and chilly in winter; I think about the guy I visited in Wisconsin on a road trip over to the UP from Duluth-Superior who said in winter he uses 100 gallons of heating oil a month. What's he going to do this winter?)
* * *
“Certainly butanol is better than ethanol. Better energy density, less corrosive, not very soluble in water, easily transported in the existing infrastructure, and easily mixed with gasoline. Unfortunately, it's one of those things that is still '2-3 years away'. “
Yes, though on paper at least it makes more sense than some other alternatives to gasoline.
In the meantime, I believe we should be synthesizing liquid fuels and gas (methane) from coal, something I've stated on more than one thread on this site. That's the very first thing to do as well as to commit to opening all our reserves of oil and gas to drilling.
* * *
“you seemed to gloss over the fact that an all electric 40 mile range would be sufficient for 70% of all driving needs. That's the _all electric_ range, not the total range”
I was thinking of all-electric vehicles. The EV-1's range, for example, was poor. Also, an all-electric vehicle is the ideal from the perspective of pollution control and freeing motorists from (direct) dependence on vehicle fuels. Sorry for being confusing.
* * *
“Go with one of them new-fangled diesels that are coming out.”
They aren't available where they are most needed, in states that have the strictest pollution laws _and_ normally ban personal Diesel-powered vehicles. (I hope that will change.)
* * *
“a network of battery replacement stations”
I've encountered this idea — not limited to individual batteries but complete (entire) battery pack replacements. Disconnect, swap, reconnect, and go. (and pay)
It sounds like you have your work cut out for you. Good luck. But I'll tell you one thing, to the extent that you can't come up any compelling documentation other than what's floating around in your head, the difficulty of your pursuit is greatly enhanced.
Companies like:
Alstom
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
Magellan
Gas
Oxy
El Paso … Key Production, Prima Energy,
Siemens
Progress Energy … Meridian Resource,
Occidental Petroleum
Parker Drilling Company …. Clayton Williams Energy
British Consulate General
Chesapeake Energy
DNV
Subsurface Consultants and Associates.
Nobel Energy
Brigham Exploration Company, ….Approach Resources
Xcel Energy
Schlumberger
Sandridge Energy, Meriden, Comstock, Danbury
Honeywell
J P Kenny
Rio Tinto
Magellan
CH2M HILL
Sunoco
Sinclair
Santec
Babcoc Power
UOP
Cameron
Canadian Natural
GE Energy
Mid American
Universal Well Site.
Alliant Energy
Whitting Energy
Just throwing out some names I worked with or around over the years that are not part of the big 5. Cant remember if all these are in the precise exploration or just the operation and/or support but many, many of them seek out and explore for awl.
DLS: Coal and synthetic fuels derived from coal — evil coal, evil industry
First of all, if you tie coal to the production of liquid fuels, what do you suppose will happen to the price of coal?
Second, what do you suppose will happen to the environment? You profess to have environmental concerns. Coal mines are toxic. They are toxic to those who work in them, and toxic to those who live around them.
Third, strip mines alone already represent more surface area than the projected surface area required to power the entire national grid with concentrated solar power. Coal mines knock down mostly forests, not deserts, and leave the area uninhabitable to critters unless and until the area is reconstituted (and that rarely happens). So do tar sand mines, for that matter. And they're even more toxic. In contrast, solar plants just provide more shade and more human presence than would otherwise exist. Granted, that could be a problem for some critters, but considering everything, I'm inclined to prefer solar.
The down side is solar can't be converted to liquid fuels. But it charges batteries as good as anything else. It can also split water into hydrogen and oxygen. And desalinate water.
Are you familiar with Craig Venter? He's one of those Really Smart People. And he says he'll have synthetic bugs that poop hydrocarbons in 18 months. The more you know about the guy the harder it is to bet against him. But still…
Its been estimated by popular mechanics who did the work up on biofuels that to replace our current gasoline demand it will take 71 percent of our lands to accomplish that……producing year after year after year.
Well at least we will be importing food instead of oil.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2…
DLS: I think about the guy I visited in Wisconsin on a road trip over to the UP from Duluth-Superior who said in winter he uses 100 gallons of heating oil a month. What's he going to do this winter?)
Has he considered intalling a geothermal heat pump? I friend of mine in Indiana has one and he thinks it's the best investment he ever made.
Neocon: Its been estimated by popular mechanics who did the work up on biofuels that to replace our current gasoline demand it will take 71 percent of our lands to accomplish that……producing year after year after year.
First of all, that article was written in 2006. Some things have changed dramatically since then. Their estimate of land involved is based on grain ethanol. They made narry a mention of cellulosic stocks, algal stocks, or more recent, more “exotic” methods of producing the desired products (e.g., designer bugs). And certainly nothing about Craig Venter. Heck, he was just starting to get up to speed back then.
If you're not familiar with the guy, this video is an excellent place to start. It's him describing how he and his colleagues developed organisms with completely synthetic DNA, and what he intends to do with them. Just about every paragraph out of his mouth is totally mind-blowing.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/ted-vid…
Yes many of us in this business know how close yeast is to being hydrocarbons. Just a bit of twisting and voila you have Hydrocarbons. However there is nothing free in life.
I just dont know why people keep up with the notion that its going to be free to make energy. Do you realize how much Yeast deravitives will be needed to produce1 million, 20 million bbls of oil per day?
Well dream on. I must return now to my previous mantra. Barak Obama and HIS Democratic party faithful has no clue what to do about Oil Today and so his minions simply want to bury their heads in the sand, deflect and create diversions till November.
I challenge the good Senator to tell us what his plan is to reduce our freakin dependence upon foreign oil TODAY. As opposed to in the year 2030 and beyond.
John McCain says drill. Drilling produces OIL. Barak Obama says NO. OKAY so I ask again. Whats going to replace OIL in Barak Obama's confused world?
If we as a socieity want to destroy an entire industry to create another one then I have no problem with that as long as its done responsibly.
For example today is the perfect time for the tree hugging left in congress to get their alternatives on the table. Work up a bill to spend 10 billion on Alternatives including the actual building of Wind and solar farms in exchange for the rights by the RIGHT to drill oil.
I have always said that the US government should just go build some wind farms. Get them up and running then turn them over to private companies. Selling them of course to the higest bidder or in the case of our government whichever company gave the largest kickbacks under the table.
This is why Im cutting T. Boone Pickens some slack. Yes its all about HIM making money. Hes not some benevolent charitable person who just wants to save America. However if hes willing to get some wind farms up and running then fine. But realize that he also wants to create another coal fired plant to offset peak hours etc. and hes opposed to drilling because of course drilling will scuttle interest in his long term plan to make billions more for himself.
So Once they have garnered the profits from that sell they can move on to create another field or tidal harness or Solar array or solar tower, or solar pond or whatever then sell that one too.
Perhaps they could fund the electric car. I think once our oil and gas industry saw the seriousness to which we were willing to fund alternatives and to actively seek to replace a large percent of the industry by alternatives then we would actually see the oil and gas companies begin looking at ways to transfer their interests to alternatives.
I do believe the government has to lead and this energy crisis is the prime example of doing that. But for the left to bury their heads in the sand and be convinced that oil can be replaced in 10-20 years is not going to help us in the next 1-3 years when oil get so expensive that people stop driving and millions lose their jobs while we are trying to see if yeast farting hydrocarbons will work or not. Or if Switchgrass celluolistic hydrofuels will work.
Sir I am opposed to growing our fuel. We already have enough water shortages and with an ever expanding worldwide population growing is totally stupid in the long run.
GROWING FUEL is the stupidest idea for the long term solution that was ever thought up.
Neocon: I do believe the government has to lead and this energy crisis is the prime example of doing that. But for the left to bury their heads in the sand and be convinced that oil can be replaced in 10-20 years is not going to help us in the next 1-3 years when oil get so expensive that people stop driving and millions lose their jobs while we are trying to see if yeast farting hydrocarbons will work or not. Or if Switchgrass celluolistic hydrofuels will work.
My problem with your argument is that there doesn't appear to be much evidence that domestic drilling will have much of an effect on the price of oil. Not in the short run, not in the long run. I am in favor of it because of its other effects — on jobs, the trade deficit, and energy security. But the idea it will have a significant effect on prices doesn't make sense to me. Oil is a fungible commodity, and traded worldwide. The world consumes over 80 million bbls of the stuff a day. Even if it were possible to come up with another 1 million bbls/day tomorrow, I don't see where it would have much of a dent. As I mentioned above, demand was down 5% in the last month compared to the same period the year before. And that represented a drop of 1 million bbls/day. That's in the US alone. I don't know what the numbers are for the rest of the world, but it's possible they were down too. But it's happening because of a weak economy. And that sucks. It would be much better to reduce demand in other ways besides a weak economy. Like, say, batteries. Or public transportation. By the way, your Popular Mechanics article had a link to a chart that compared the costs as they existed at the time of various alternatives to gasoline. Did you see it? Check out the electricity column.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fue…
Sir I am opposed to growing our fuel. We already have enough water shortages and with an ever expanding worldwide population growing is totally stupid in the long run.
If you're talking about growing fuel on arable land, I'm not a big fan of it either. However, I'm less opposed to using non-arable land. But even there I'm skeptical there's enough of it available to scale up enough to replace oil. But it doesn't have to. It just has to make a significant contribution. In theory anyway, algae is an even better idea. The yields that stuff can attain are amazing. They can be grown in vertical bioreactors, in the desert, or in salt water seaside ponds. They thrive on CO2. And even natural species generate significant quantities of oil. Apparently though, it's difficult to harvest efficiently. Nonetheless there are at least two companies I'm aware of that are going commercial scale. One is Petrosun (Petrosuninc.com), who just opened up an 1,100 acre farm down in Texas. The other is HR BioPetroleum, who just announced plans to build a commercial-scale algae facility on Maui.
http://www.hrbp.com/News/071508.html
For the record, I don't think it's a good idea for the government to get into the energy business. Facilitiating it in certain ways, okay. But ownership, not okay.
Im talking about growing fuel on arid land and fertile land. It requires an immense amount of water to grow fuel. An ever expanding population demands we grow food, not fuel.
Secondly celloulistic biofuels might never be a reality because of the problems involved with them. Certainly not in the next 3-5 years and even if they were we are not going to get in place the infrastructure to produce these fuels in any quantitiy to make a difference.
So your argument continues to be rooted in one fact in your mind that you then must support. NO DRILLING.
My argument is based in Drill now. The onus is not upon me to prove that oil can get to market. WE KNOW that oil will get to market. WE KNOW that an expansion of oil will bring the prices down. WE KNOW that there is oil out there to be found.
The ONUS is not upon the drillers to prove that more oil will reduce prices. The ONUS is upon those arguing against it to prove their technology and alternatives can make a difference in 1-7 years and I believe they cannot and the facts do not support their conclusions. There is NO infrastructure in place to bring massive quantities of biofuel online to make a difference.
However the entire infrastructure is in place to bring oil online. The objection is that those opposed to drilling must then deflect and redirect the argument away from drilling because their is no evidence it can be done in 1-3 years.
Says who? Oh right………Big oil says so.
Neocon, wasn't it you (on a previous thread) that indicated oil recovery requires vast amounts of water?
Isn't it true that at the low end the price of oil is limited by the costs associated with extracting it? In other words, it's not just whether “you” can get oil to market, it's a question of at what price, isn't it?
For the record, I'm not opposed to drilling — again, as long as it can be done responsibly, and as long as the existing industries in the areas affected are considered. Also for the record, I am also in favor of breaking our addiction to oil (particularly of the foreign variety) as much as possible as soon as possible. I have no illusions that we will succeed in that endeavor any time soon, no matter how hard we try. But I think trying hard is nonetheless the way to go. We currently import 60% of the oil we use. Short of exploiting oil shale deposits, there is no way we can domesticate that shortfall. And as of now, no one has come up with a cost-effective, environmentally responsible way to exploit oil shale. But to be perfectly honest with you, I hope they never do. Rather, I think the better, more sustainable, and healthier trajectory is to reduce demand. We can do both (i.e., enhance domestic supply and reduce demand), it's not an either/or question. But there is every reason to believe the demand reduction trajectory will have a more significant impact than any amount of drilling could, and well before 2030.
Can I prove that? No. It is not possible to prove anything when talking about the future tense. But I will be mightily surprised if plug-in hybrids are not available in quantity by 2012. Likewise, I will be mightily surprised if the price of oil is lower then than it is today, regardless of how much drilling is accomplished in the interrim. I could be wrong on either or both counts. But I don't think so. How about you?
Neocon, wasn't it you (on a previous thread) that indicated oil recovery requires vast amounts of water?
Yes it does. Thus continental shelf drilling.
New technology is available now that allows for the use of CO2 in place of water if you have a coal fired plant close to ship you that co2.