What Big Oil Doesn’t Want You To Know About Biofuels
What Big Oil Doesn’t Want You To Know About Biofuels
As rising energy prices trigger growing concerns on the part of Americans, the energy industry is determined to maintain the status quo and stall on a major opportunity to reduce energy dependence – the production of biofuels.
Energy industry officials have no shortage of excuses on why they can’t move forward on biofuels. In a recent BBC article, one unnamed industry official asserted that “there’s simply not enough foodstuff available and not enough land to grow it on†to keep up with the “growing demand for [grains] used to produce biodiesel.†A day earlier a New York Times article quoted an agricultural expert warning that demand for foodstuff for biofuels might mean higher food prices, instability and even corn shortages.
But the facts don’t back up their arguments. In the face of growing energy demands from China and India and global population growth, an international corn shortage isn’t possible anytime soon:
First, developing a biofuel economy can actually help reduce hunger and poverty by diversifying agricultural and forestry activities, attracting new farmers, and investing in small and medium enterprises. Increased investment in agricultural production has the potential to boost incomes of the world’s poorest people.
Second, world hunger is not the result of absolute food scarcity in the world. Hunger has more to do with inadequate distribution and income. Presently, nearly 40 percent of global cereal crops are used to feed livestock, not humans.
Finally, biofuel refineries in the future will depend less on food crops and more on organic wastes and residues. The greatest potential from sustainable transportation fuels will come from emerging technologies that produce alcohol fuels from cellulose (“cellulosic ethanolâ€) which unlike corn ethanol, also uses the stalks, hulls and other woody, rigid material that makes up the plants.
Ethanol, coupled with strong efficiency and smart growth policies, could dramatically reduce, if not eliminate the United States’ need for oil. Don’t let the naysayers tell you any different.
- Teresita Perez
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
141 Responses to “What Big Oil Doesn’t Want You To Know About Biofuels”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
These boys are gonna hold on to the very end.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pmjust like 50% of antibotics are used by the big agibusiness.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pmgoddamn!
January 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pmBigOil and BigChem will take it to the bitter end, rather than acknowledge that hemp oil is a very accessible and convertable biofuel commodity. But since it is a noxious weed that can grow in no less than 24 of the 32 climate zones on the planet, the laws against it will continue to be enforced to protect us from ourselves. Well to protect our economic assets from ourselves might be a better way to phrase it.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pmHey, why change when they are rolling in dough? It may be soaked in the blood of our GIs, but hey, it's still green underneath the oil and blood caked on coating.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pmPeople that want to use technology to solve major problems are suckers man.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pmyeah all those government subsudies going to the big farms to not grow crops or plow them under are really doing a lot of good as is. Maybe start using that extra production as bio-fuel. Naahhh...must not think out of the box.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pmI would have thought McDonalds would be all over biodiesel. Have half the cars in town running about with the smell of McFries coming out of the exhaust.....with a sign on the back saying 'follow me to your nearest Temple of the Clown'...
January 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pmBiofuels appear to be a good way to help solve the energy crisis until one considers the thermodymics involved in the food-to-fuels conversion. At best, it's a poor net gain, at worst it consumes more kjoules of energy than it produces (all things being considered).
January 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pmMaybe if we didn't use most of our grain to fatten animals (which results in about 95% waste of the grains' food value), and instead fed ourselves directly with what's grown, we'd have lots more land on which to grow fuels.
Make no mistake, I enjoy me a big juicy steak now & then, but when we use most of our crops to feed animals rather than growing food for humans directly, there's a huge amount of waste.
I raised cattle and hogs for many years so I know of what I speak.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pmNot enough land to grow it on???? Bull! I recently read that there are an average of something like 250 family farms per day shutting down in this country because the farmers cannot make a living off the products they produce and sell. And what is a farm's biggest asset? Hmmmm?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#11, the root of some of this lies in the massive subsidies the west gives to their farmers - the rest of the world struggles to get a good agriculture going while the west dumps subsidized food on them.
#9 I think you speaketh sooth perhaps, got any data?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:09 pmADM has been workin on bio-engineered corn for years. That's thestuff we should be turning into biofuel because lord knows we shouldn't eat it.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:10 pmOh yeah, one other thing--HEMP. Grows like a weed ('cuz it is one), provides great fiber for paper and other finished goods, plus hempseed oil burns real good in diesel engines (with much lower carbon buildup than petrol based diesel fuel).
Hemp and soybeans, both marvelous plants. But rightwingers are afraid of hemp because it looks like (GASP) marijuana. And of course someone might actually grow marijuana--we certainly can't have anyone smoking God's little flowers and possibly ENJOYING THEMSELVES, now could we!
January 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pmPractice saying Justice Samuel Alito. Just one more liberal needs to step down before a true conservative majority is formed.
Oh well, you can still live in fairy tale land and pretend Bush is spying on you.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:11 pmBiodiesel is only feasible on a small scale (i.e. brewing it in your garage in a 40-gallon hot water heater) with used waste oil. Think of the farmland that would have to be devoted to growing the crop, chemical pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers required for its health and to maintain the soil, energy outputs to plant it, cultivate it, and harvest it, and energy outputs to transport it to the biodiesel plant. After all that, you have gained 1)it's domestic and 2) it's clean. But you have used so much energy to produce it, and is it really sustainable on the soil for a long period of time?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pmQUOTE: "Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.
Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)
Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed."
END QUOTE
See: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
January 25th, 2006 at 5:14 pmHow efficient is refining of petroleum into diesel fuel, or for that matter gasoline?
Hempseed oil. Very renewable. Doesn't need cultivation.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pm15.
We know Alito is in, already accepted it, move along. Nice attempt to derail the thread, about how big oil will resist any attempts to reduce dependence on it.
Sounds like Right Wing talking point #12, "We are in control, not you" Just because you have control, does not make you better, right, or good.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:17 pmQUOTE: "For every 10 kilograms of soya protein fed to America’s cattle only one kilogram is converted into meat, the remainder being excreted. Almost the entire population of India and China, nearly two billion people, could be fed on the protein consumed and largely wasted by the United States’ beef herd..." END QUOTE
http://www.viva.org.uk/books/ark/ch13.html
Again, I ain't a vegetarian but decades of raising meat made me realize how wasteful and inefficient it is. If you can, please support your local "range fed" meat producers. It's better for you, and it's certainly better for the land.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#12...I don't recall the prominent university professor who initially debunked the the positive net energy yield on the food-to-fuel conversion, but an internet search related to biofuel thermodynamics should give you many references related to the energy yield/transformations during the process.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pmDo trolls understand the words "off topic?"
January 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pmWhy would the energy industry want to develop biofuels, when they are banking huge profits off of you and I, the suckers who drive gas-guzzling SUVs, and who refuse to make any personal sacrifices in order to make our country less dependant on oil? Personnally, as long as my Democratic party keeps blocking attempts at domestic oil exploration and refining, I don't think we can really criticize anyone. If I was in the energy industry, I wouldn't be researching JACK SQUAT. Why should they? We are doing it to ourselves, people.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pm#15 Innocent Lite - still waiting to hear back from you if you are morally treasonous, unpatriotic or servile or some combo of all three....
January 25th, 2006 at 5:22 pmIn regards to post # 9,Current ethanol conversion is 1btu input 1.65 btu output.New technology is 1/4.In regards to post #7 government set aside was discontinued a number of years ago.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#23 is correct. I'm a former (Eisenhower-style) republican who became a democrat for awhile because I thought they might be less willing to promote defense industry profiteering through war-mongering than the repubs. But the dems seem to have become little more than enablers so I jumped ship. Except for some individual "representatives", most of the members from both of the main parties are on the take from the energy industry & defense contractors.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pmMy preferance is that we dump the combustion engine altogether.
That's what I'd like my government to be studying. Do I expect oil companies to do this? Hell no! First, their stockholders would kill them, second, they have dumbya & Cheney in the White House. Now's when the getting is good for them.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:33 pmThe way I see things, the only way to REALLY encourage research of alternative fuels is to: a) Flood the world oil market by drilling in ANWAR, and other domestic sources (to hell with caribou!) and b) everyone start driving automobiles that get at least 30 miles per gallon. With the world market saturated with cheap oil, the energy industry will be forced to research more profitable forms of energy - like fuel cells, biodiesel, etc. We have to force them somehow.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:33 pm#25 Does that include all the fuel inputs required to grow, tend, harvest, transport, process the agricultural products into fuel? Seems hard to believe you can get a net energy increase of 65% on the output/product side of the equation. References?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:33 pmPresto is 100% correct. The only reason we haven't farmed our way into an American Sahara is because of petroleum-based fertilizers. Just imagine what terraforming the land to make way for BD fuels would require on the fertilizer front. And crop rotation isn't exactly as useful in this case, because we'll just grow the one seed that produces the most oil and ignore everything else, our energy cravings are that intense. Biodiesel on the industrial scale will only result in a destroyed (overfarmed) environment, and won't even begin to serve our "needs" (wants).
Now Biodiesel on the individual level from used waste grease, that's responsible use of energy and a service to the local community.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:38 pm#29 USDA wedsite,yes it includes input costs.No harder to believe than petroleum is always a negative when all inputs are considered.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pmHere's a summary of some ethanol info, along with other biofuels:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
January 25th, 2006 at 5:40 pmI don't understand the environmental community jumping on the ethanol bandwagon. In it's current form (mostly corn-based) it is a poor net energy gain (1.3 gallons produced per 1 gallon consumed at best, 0 net gain at worst) and it is consuming enormous amounts of taxpayer money (ethanol is subsidized at something like $0.50 per gallon produced - and apply the net efficiency of 30% and taxpayers spend $1.50 per net gallon of fuel!!!). Plus, the effects of corn production on water quality, soil erosion and loss of wildlife habitat are enormous.
Pure and simple, ethanol from corn is poor energy policy and welfare for corn farmers. The taxpayer money would be much better spent on tax benefits for fuel-efficient car buyers (hybrid or not - just fuel efficient), research on better wind, solar, and other truly renewable forms, and energy efficient improvements for homes.
The goal of converting ethanol from corn-based to fiber-based feedstocks is laudable, but I doubt it is politically or economically feasible. If you take away the corn element, the political support for the tax subsidies disappears. Midwest politicians live in fear of the corn farmer/agribusiness (Cargill, ADM) lobby. Is the fiber feedstock method of ethanol production economically possible without the subsidy? (I don't know-I'm asking). The problem is, corn-based ethanol plants are being built rapidly around the midwest, and they will be difficult to convert to using fiber feedstocks, both from a political standpoint and from an engineering standpoint. Corn ethanol has enormous momentum in this country, thanks in part to misguided (in my opinion) support from environmentalists.
Regarding #11 - do you think the farms that go out of business are sitting idle, waiting to grow feedstocks for ethanol plants? Please have some idea of what you are talking about - when a farmer goes out of business, someone else buys the land and it is never out of production.
I live in rural Minnesota, and I've been involved in agriculture all my life. I drive a Toyota Prius that gets 45-50 mpg.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:42 pmUntil we refuse to take it anymore, we will keep getting it.
Overnight change is difficult. You can't go from being a meat and potatoes omnivore to a vegan in one afternoon (took me about 3 years) - and the same holds true with all other aspects of our lives and culture. But we have to be willing to make incremental changes in our own lives, before we will able to see them anywhere else.
I live close to my job, use public transportation when available and walk to places within a 2 mile radius. I grow a garden in the summer. I stopped watching commercials and limit my television to 3 to 5 hours per week. When I go to the store, I go with a list and only go where these items lie (incredible how much I was spending on nothing of value that just fattens the wallets of Corporate America). Not only am I decreasing my dependence on the BIG Corporate Industries, but I now have considerably less stress in my life, and, as a result am regularly mistaken for being considerably younger than my real age. It's not just about 'sticking it to the man', but about living in harmony and balance with the earth - as we should be.
People are not supposed to live like this.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:46 pma) Flood the world oil market by drilling in ANWAR, and other domestic sources
Let's see: experts on the subject say there is probably no more than a six to nine month supply of oil there (granted, that is six months of American level of consumption), and it won't be available for years, even if drilling is approved tomorrow. How, exactly, is that going to flood the market?
b) everyone start driving automobiles that get at least 30 miles per gallon.
Yeah, tell that to Ford employees getting pink slips. Do "American" auto companies even make cars that get that kind of mileage, and if they did, would you buy one?
Increased drilling does not solve the problem, but, rather, seems to increase it. And is there any "cheap oil" left?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:46 pmPost#33-Dave ,what is your involvement in agriculture?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:47 pmI've switch to bio-oil for my home heating. It's the same price, burns cleaner, and is generally more environmentally friendly. Plus I swear sometimes I can smell french fries.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:48 pmright #33; like it or not, there's just far less energy available in a unit of biofuel compared to its petroleum equivalent (you'd have to burn more biofuel to get the equivalent mpg's found in a petroleum product). Biofuels are not the answer for transportation; simply too costly overall (in many ways).
January 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pmDoes that include all the fuel inputs required to grow, tend, harvest, transport, process the agricultural products into fuel?
Are resource extraction methods subject to this scrutiny? It doesn't come up by itself, and it certainly isn't gasoline when it does come up?
January 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm#35-
You are correct that, as of right now, there is only a 6-9 month source of economically recoverable oil. The key term here is ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE. The TOTAL oil reserves in ANWAR are massive. They are the largest oil reserve in the world. The problem is that the vast majority is inaccessible, given our current drilling technology. However, with advances in technology, we will be able to access all the oil eventually. But first, the oil companies need access. Naturally, access to ANWAR will spur more oil drilling technologically advances in order to recover the oil. The cycle will go on and on, until eventually we will be able to recover more oil then we know what to do with.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pmroundup,
I believe you're wrong. You want to look at the new work in biomass conversion of biowaste. The difference between BTUs of ethanol and gasoline isn't significant enough to be a problem - and the new methods that already are being used in prototype tests in California are in fact signifantly cheaper per BTU than gasoline currently is. The techniques convert scraps and field waste to fuels, instead of using corn.
I read a little blurb about it last week - apparently Schwartzy is tied to it in California.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:02 pmJD, #40
Actually the ANWAR reserves are tiny compared to other fields. Wherever you got this information, it's completely bogus.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:04 pmActually there are other ways to produce fuel/energy other than raising crops that need consideration as well.
Methane ( from waste ) , solar, wind. All added together would make it viable to reduce our dependancy on oil. Big oil has fought every attempt to back these other methods.It would cut into their profits too much.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:06 pmIf you want to read a scathing opinion of both sides in the energy crisis, may I introduce you to James Kunstler, author of 'The Long Emergency' and his blog 'Clusterfrut Nation'. Nothing if not thought-provoking and controversial, and a good blog to boot.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#42-
Actually, the information on the ANWAR reserves is readily available on the USGS website. Check it out. The only bogus information on this site are your posts. The fact is, the ANWAR oil reserves are so large, they don't even know exactly how much oil is really there. There is more than enough to keep the world awash in cheap oil for generations to come.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pmTrouble getting the link in - here it is
January 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pm#41 you are correct in that new biomass or biofuels are being used to create ethanol.The technology is being developed and refined at a fast pace. corn as a feedstock is feasible with this technology.What you reference to in California is converting cellulose into ethanol, the trick is in the enzymes once that is overcome it opens up many new possibilities.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:13 pm#45 JD,
If you don't have a link, and can't produce the numbers, then you're just spouting bogus claims.
Here are the actual statistics from the USGS
Even the most generous figures from the USGS puts ANWAR reserves as 'small' by international standards.
Approximate 664bbls of these reserves are located in Middle East (mostly Arabian Gulf countries).
This puts your claims at a complete and utter misrepresentation - and one might dare say lie. I can see how your fear of the middle east might lead you into readily being duped by such a lie, and I forgive you for your weakness and lack of detailed research. Try harder next time though, would you?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#39 the question arises about energy input of the source as it exists. Petroleum (crude oil) is concentrated energy and has not required any energy input form humans in its creation. Growing crops on the other hand (at least on an industrial scale) takes huge amounts of energy inputs (fuels and otherwise). That's not to mention the fact that petroleum is found subsurface while agriculture, based on the scaled needed to supplant/significantly augment petroleum, would require huge tracts of land area (in total).
January 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pmcornboy,
According to the articles I read, the enzyme problem has already been solved, and that's why the NREL and california are doing field trials. I can do go dig up the articles on the subject if you're interested.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pm#49 roundup,
You missed the point. Biomass doesn't require you to grow new crops, it converts the waste from existing crops that get thrown away, burned, or plowed under into ethanol. The scale of agriculture needed to support it already exists, the only thing that doesn't is the infrastructure and refineries and fueling stations needed to dispense it.
The problem used to be that food was required as the starting point (corn, sugar cane, etc.), but the new processes can convert agri-waste and biowaste into ethanol.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:18 pm#45 the CBO (from USGS) says ANWR holds about 6 billion barrels
The current US demand is about 20 million barrels a day (2002 numbers)
Even without projecting energy demand increases year on year (because I am lazy) ANWR can supply the US for ONE WHOLE YEAR and ONE YEAR ONLY.
Er, Mr Jackass - I can smell something.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#50,Yes,I would be interested in that article,I am interested in the enzyme conversion.There are many others who are working on the issue
January 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pm#51,exactly
January 25th, 2006 at 6:23 pm#41. Hey, I'm not a big fan of extraction/utilization of petroleum as a fuel (it too has a myraid of problems associated with it). If the thermodynamics of biofuels yield a net positive result in the conversion with less environmental/ecological impact, I'm all for it. References? Data? Background info?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#52 and #48-
Again, you guys are not listening. The key word is ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE. Yes, I agree that there is only a six month supply of economically recoverable oil. However, the TOTAL reserves are massive. Do some research, please. Just because I can't find a link doesn't mean what I am saying is not true. I'm no liar.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:26 pmcornboy,
Here are federal and state government sites.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/ethanol/
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/cellulase_enzyme.html
Here are some related industry links
http://www.novozymes.com/cgi-bin/bvisapi.dll/biotimes/one_article.jsp?id=16507
http://www.fiberfutures.org/solutions.html
This has gone from being a 'conceptual' technology to a practical one virtually overnight. The only thing needed at this point is a willingness to ditch big oil.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pm#56,
All oil reserves are done based on recoverability worldwide, any other method of estimation is left up to fairy tales and soothsayers. Does that help you realize that you're spouting fantasies?
And once again, I gave you an opportunity to post these links and resources for you 'fuzzy' numbers, and you didn't - I wonder why. It's so easy to believe a fantasy instead of facing reality isn't it?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pmI just heard a story an NPR that Ford is getting ready to produce around 2000 vehicles that use 85% ethynol and 15% gasoline. this is not a subject I know much about, but ethynol does come from corn so would this be considered Biofuel?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm#57 Thank you,If you get to Minnesota I'll give you a tour of our ethanol plant with fluid bed technology,which uses the solids off the evaporators to provide steam to the process.The problem to over come with biomass is the transportation,especially with cornstalks or straw.Paper waste may be easier as it is alread being hauled.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:37 pm#56 why don't you show us your numbers Mr J? I showed you mine. And this 'economically recoverable' number depends on the price of oil on the market. For example, my number of 6 billion was based on a market price of $35. If you have a market price of $25 then you have 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Now if we make life simple and linearly project this line to $105 a barrel, then you have maybe 18 billion barrels recoverable, but this is beyond any estimate I've seen, even from biased parties like the Heritage Foundation. 18 billion barrels? OK THREE YEARS of US demand without any accounting for energy demand growth (historically about 3% a year).
So why did I choose $105 dollars a barrel? Because that is close to the number that most economists think matches the adjusted price for oil in 1990-1991 and 1973-1974 when the price of oil threw the world into big recessions. So maybe the oil companies can get 18 billion barrels of oil out of ANWR but that 'economically recoverable' price means that a major world recession is likely - this hardly supports your argument Mr J and three years is hardly massive.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:38 pm#8 good idea but if you drove a car in DC today with that sign don't expect then to show up at Mc's they'd all drive to 1600 pennsylvania ave with out another thought.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:38 pmShannon,
Ethanol is biofuel, and it comes from plant matter/sugar in general. If you read the thread further up, you'll see discussions about it being produced from sugars such as those in Corn and Sugar Cane (brazil uses this path), but the real future lies in converting biomass agri waste into ethanol. Unlike gasoline which burns fossilized carbon and increases greenhouse gases with new carbon sources, this uses carbon already in the current environment. It's desirable from a global warming perspective.
And yes, the E85 cars are great - ford has been making them in brazil for years. A percentage of 'flex fuel' cars as they call them which will burn either ethanol, gasoline or a dynamic mix of either is required by law, and therefore common there. There's no reason the american car companies couldn't build these same cars in the US, other than their corporate ties to big oil.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:39 pmcorboy,
Transportation is an issue, which is why it makes sense to build the biomass conversion refineries in agriculture areas. It would also provide jobs and local opportunities and profit that would otherwise just end up in a middle east dictator's pockets.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pm#59yes it is.These vehicles have been on the market for a number of years.Brazil has had them for about 25 years.Chrysler and GM also mfg them
January 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pmThanks RightPunch. It seemed like a viable alternative to me for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And it just may drive me to buy my first American made care :-)
January 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pm#58 and #61-
You guys don't have a clear understanding of the methods used in oil exploration. Yes, they base the number of barrels of economically recoverable oil on the current market price. However, this doesn't have a bearing on the ACTUAL reserves that are in the ground. Just because oil cannot be recovered - yet - does not mean it is not there. I wrote a pretty heavy research paper on this topic last year. Sorry, but I cannot find the link to some of my sources. Again, this doesn't mean I am lying. We will evenually be able to recover the oil in ANWAR that is not currently economically recoverable, and those reserves are huge.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pmWill drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do anything to solve our current gasoline and heating oil supply problems and reduce prices?
No. Most experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for 7 - 12 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years. A new study by the US Energy Information Agency (March 2004) entitled Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (this is a PDF file that requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view), shows that even if oil were being pumped today, it would only reduce our oil imports from about 70% to about 66%, having no real effect on overall prices or supply.
Even if the oil were flowing today, OPEC could cut its supply slightly to compensate and prices would remain the same. In fact, we've been through this before. In 1978 oil first flowed through the Alaska Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, which had much larger reserves than any estimates of Arctic Refuge Oil. Not only did prices not go down, they actually DOUBLED between 1978 and 1981. In 1978 the average national price per gallon was 60 cents. In 1981 it was more than $1.20. This historical information is available from the US Energy Information Administration. Claims that oil or gas prices will go down if we drill in the Arctic Refuge are flat out lies.
http://www.leaveitalone.org/oil10myths.htm
January 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pmOh and this 'economically recoverable' argument applies on the Canadian plains too. Except they have an added complication: to get the tar out of the sand they need to douse the sand in hot water or steam (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage). Well guess how they make the steam? Natural gas. And unfortunately nat gas prices went up over 75% last year and about the same the year before and its likely that peak gas has already been passed there, so the costs of melting the tar is going up too. It actually does not matter how much oil/tar/gas there is, you are right, it is the costs in energy terms to get it to market. Whatever the numbers, the days of cheap energy and driving your Ford Explorer everywhere are nearly at an end.
Frankly the ANWR field should be put aside until we can find a way to not burn 60% of it in Arnold's Hummer and use it for the chemicals and advanced materials that we depend on. Setting fire to it is such a waste.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pm# 61 another wrench in #56's argument, if the oil that you recover takes more energy to recover and refine than you produce then the dollar factor has been trumped by the real cost of energy, to put it into simple example if it takes one and one half barrels of crude oil to drill, pump, transport, and refine what is in the end only one barrel then the energy loss can't be overcome with any amount of money, even at 1000 dollars a barrel you lose oil, or 1500 dollars to get 1000 dollars to sell, go to bankruptcy court but with no oil you'll have to walk
January 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pmPunch, Another problem is that the biomass contains nutrients so it becomes a trade off depending on the price relationship to petroleum.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:46 pmAre estimated oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge expected to significantly change our long term energy prospects?
No. It is estimated that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than a six month supply of oil at our current consumption rates.
Would the oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be used in the United States?
Not necessarily. Under current laws and regulations, oil companies are allowed to sell oil produced in Alaska to foreign countries. A ban on selling such oil overseas was lifted in 1995 but the Alaska delegates are on record as opposing the reinstitution of a similar ban.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:46 pmIs there evidence that increases in domestic oil supplies translate into savings at the gas pump.
No. Crude oil prices and thus the prices at the pump are determined almost solely by OPEC, the Mid-Eastern cartel that controls the majority of the world’s oil supply. Because total known U.S. reserves represent only 2.8 percent of the world’s oil and our nation uses nearly a third of the world’s production. we are really powerless to influence prices in any meaningful way or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Back in 1977 when the Alaska pipeline was first opened the oil industry said we'd see lower prices. Prices have gone up considerably since then. In fact, between 1977 and 1981 gasoline prices MORE THAN DOUBLED all while the millions of gallons of Alaskan oil were being pumped.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pmBiofuels have a significant downside that must be addressed. They will come from the lowest cost source, not necessarily the "greenest." Today that includes palm oil from huge plantations in Southeast Asia, and huge soybean farms in Brazil. Some of these plantations and farms are on recently cleared rainforest (the clearing of the forest releases a tremendous amount of carbon), and Malaysia and Indonesia have more plantations planned.
BirdLife International has a photo in a recent press release that makes clear the potential negative consequences of biodiesel production.
Clearly, petroleum extraction has tremendous environmental consequences in the tropics, but we should not think that biofuels don't have consequences because tthey are not "Big Oil." And if "Big Oil" sees the possibility of a return on investment in palm oil or soybean fuel, they might go for it, nature be damned.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pmDo the oil companies have connections with the governmental proponents of drilling in the refuge?
Yes.
President George W. Bush:
Oil and gas firms have donated $1,761,567 to George Bush’s presidential campaign, making the oil and gas industry one of Bush’s top 10 contributors in Election 2000.
Enron Corporation–which proclaimed itself as "the world’s leading energy company"- was one of President Bush’s top 10 donors, giving $113,800 to his 2000 presidential campaign. Enron was also Bush’s top career patron, giving $555,275 throughout Bush’s political career. The second greatest Bush career patron–donating $322,400-- is the Sanchez family of Laredo, Texas, owners of Sanchez-O’Brien Oil and Gas.
Mr. Bush’s presidential recount fund shows $85,500 in donations from persons who work for oil and oil-affiliated industries.
The Presidential Inaugural Committee has received $1,000,000 in funding from the oil and gas industries.
Oil and gas companies have contributed at least $556,700 to Bush’s 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns, and an additional $944,733 in large contributions came from individuals affiliated with oil companies.
George Bush is a former oil man himself, having owned the fairly unsuccessful Arbusto Energy Inc. and Bush Exploration. These companies, in 1984, merged with Spectrum 7 (Bush was named chairman and CEO), which was later bought by out Harken Oil and Gas in 1986.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:48 pm#67, I know more about it than you might think, although I don't present papers on reservoir theory. I'm sorry, but saying that the reserves are huge without backing it up is not moving the discussion forward. If you can get me 10 years of US demand at $40 a barrel, then you can probably win the argument, but I can't find anyone who thinks that is the case.
I agree with you that its the price at the pump that counts, not what's in the ground. And if the price at the pump is $5 or $6 or more, do you really think ANWR, no matter what is there will save the US economy?
January 25th, 2006 at 6:51 pmAn excellent book on this issue is,
THE LAST HOURS of ANCIENT SUNLIGHT, by Thom Hartmann
Not real technical, if you could understand highschool science than it is easily readable,
Also google the term peak oil, 14,900,000 hits
Even you guys who we don't always agree with here should read the book and google peak oil, because the case layed out in the book is coming rather fast, and there is no easy answer, Bush, Cheny are oilmen, that is where they focus, As the price continues to riseand it will we have to find ways to live with less and less.
January 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pmThe best way I know of to conserve our energy resources is to use birth control.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:01 pm"Punch, Another problem is that the biomass contains nutrients so it becomes a trade off depending on the price relationship to petroleum. cornboy"
Apparently 10% of the biomass being tilled back in is sufficient to keep soil healthy. Also cover crops are often grown during winter cycles that wouldn't be used for biomass production, and those directly affect soil quality. And then there's the matter that much of the biomass that can and probably would be used is normally burned and not tilled into to soil. Corn stalks and rice stalks are two common waste materials that could be used.
"Biofuels have a significant downside that must be addressed. They will come from the lowest cost source, not necessarily the “greenest.â€" meander
True, but it's all relative and even the least green source that would be economically viable is going to be superior to what oil is doing to global warming. Also, the other factor is that it isn't economical to transport the starting materials, so this does increase the likelihood of a greener source.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:03 pmunbelievable,
The ironic part of ANWAR is that the oil would most likely be sold to Japan or other countries instead of being used within the US because of transportation issues. That's why the arguments by the ANWAR advocates is so silly.
Much of Alaska oil is sold on the international market currently, because doing so means that they can derive a higher price, and therefore kick more money into the pockets of Alaskans. The west coast can only refine so much oil, and much of that oil already comes from sources other than Alaska. As a result, much of our 'american' oil is actually sold abroad anyway.
How's that for a kicker!
January 25th, 2006 at 7:09 pm#79,The reality is that all sources of renewable energy will be needed and that government subsidies in one form or another are used as the incentive until it becomes a mature industry.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:11 pmcornboy,
The novoenzymes say that ethanol can be produced for less than the cost of gasoline currently. The only incentives needed are around getting cars on the road that will run on the fuels, and getting fueling stations set up to sell it. All of that can and should be mandated based on the current state of the technology. Most likely California will be the first to go with mandating this. Not only does the state have its own regulatory power over the auto industry products sold in the state, but it also is doing the pilot programs now that are likely to prove how significant the approach is.
And where california goes, the country follows - often involuntarily.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:17 pmA second problem is that most fertilizers are based on natural gas, with out diesel of some form and fertilizers the population of the planet that can be supported by the available tillable land is between 2-2.5 billion, and that will require alot more human and animal labor than is used in american agriculture now, however we are heading to 7 billion soon, kinda hope mars has a rock section so they'll bail us out with "We are the solar system"
January 25th, 2006 at 7:19 pmClif,
Doesn't that just beg for cows to be strapped up to 'gas bags' so their methane can be harnessed for fertilizers ;)
January 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pmPunch,In Minnesota many of the E-85 stations were started by grassroot co-ops and organizations.the Fed Energy bill has incentives to help with infrastructure,once California was denied an oxygenate waiver in the MTBE debate,I have no doubt that the state will move quickly to adopt as much cutting edge technology as possible.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:26 pm#83 actually methane digesters are being developed to convert animal waste into gas.Nitrogen for better or worse will be derived from GMO plants crossed with legumes in the near future.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pmHemp production is stifled by the cotton industry. They don't want any competition for raw materials. What a hypocritic government. It's okay to drink alcohol and smoke killer cigarettes but god forbid you light up a joint. All the potheads will rot in hell.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:49 pmYes but I thought the wingnuts were sipping the rear of their cows to get all that hot air theyy expell at us.
but seriously the manure that used to fertilise most family farms are not available to the one product corporate farms, and as the transition to boio- diesel or ethonol do not have the same energy content an oil. so thebigger farms will probably become dinasours, also there are only two countries that grow enough food in any abundance to feed the larger masses in the world, Canada and the US, but if oil which powers all large ocean going transport vessels becomes more expensive and scarce ethiopia could become a term we use to describe many countries around the world.
And conversly if we can't easily get our food to the world we can't get the goods made for walmart back here,
January 25th, 2006 at 7:50 pmI've heard a prediction that gas will be $10.00/gallon within the next 5 years.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:55 pmChina already has deals with Iran for their oil. Nigeria oil wells are being bombed. Iraq's civil war will make getting to their oil difficult. And Bush just hates Chevaz so you can forget about that oil. Visit an Alternative Energy and Sustainable Living Festival in you locality. Some very interesting stuff going on. There will be an Alternative Energy and Sustainable Living Festival in Kempton PA on Sept 22 and 23 2006. I know that there are several of these events in the midwest. Just google.
#87Also stopped by gov.regulation which views industrial hemp the same as pot.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:58 pmIf you're looking for info on stocks in this area, I found this web site:
January 25th, 2006 at 8:07 pmhttp://www.biodieselinvesting.com/publicly-traded-american-biodiesel-stocks/
What about thermal depolymerization?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
There's an unlimited quantity of waste material that can be made into light crude oil.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pmWhy not convert all Republicans to biofuel. These lard asses could provide enough burnable oil to keep the economy humming for about fifty years.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm#87Also stopped by gov.regulation which views industrial hemp the same as pot.
Comment by cornboy
I had wanted to mention that to IRI when he went on his hemp and razorwire rant. What a dumbass.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pmhref="http://www.ethanolrfa.org/"> general info
January 25th, 2006 at 8:31 pmI'ved lived in the garden part of the Garden State for 23 years. For those 23 years, every spring the acres and acres and acres of corn fields are planted with new corn;
January 25th, 2006 at 8:31 pm...and every fall the corn is left to rot in the fields on unharvested stalks.
.
Not sure how far off this is, but did any of you see the piece on Oil sand in Calgary Canada.
It was on Dateline maybe? I forget. It used to be too expensive to extract but as the price goes up...
Google Oil Sand and Calgary and see what you get. There is a big boom going on up there. It's not a biofuel really except all petroleum products used to be bio once, eh?
January 25th, 2006 at 8:31 pm#97 alot of investment in the tar sands project,must be getting close to being viable#96 Is that field corn?
January 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pmThe net energy value (NEV) of producing ethanol varies widely depending on where it is made, and the overall number is debatable. The USDA optimistically places ethanol’s NEV at small 1.34 while others calculate a net energy loss. However, regardless of who is right, ethanol will never come close to meeting the efficiency and former abundance of fossil fuels. Ethanol plants are powered by natural gas; farm machinery runs on diesel fuel or gasoline; nitrogen fertilizers are produced from natural gas; pesticides and herbicides are produced using oil; and seeds, chemicals, crops, tools, and the final product, are all transported by trucks, which run on diesel.
Obviously, food production is similarly dependent on fossil fuels. Every calorie of food consumed in the United States usually takes somewhere between four and several hundred calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce. This is an unsustainable trend that will be discontinued as oil production goes into decline. For this reason, putting ethanol production in competition with food production for the world’s farming resources is a very dangerous idea.
Some have mentioned Brazil, which in order to meet increasing energy demands is growing more sugar for fuel and less for food, resulting in a 98% increase in world-wide sugar prices just in the past year. The same thing is beginning to happen in the United States, and if this trend in ethanol/food production continues, it will permanently lock energy and food prices together in an unstoppable upward spiral.
The first step to beating the big bad oil giants is to become less energy-dependent. Until a plan is on the table for lowering demand to a sustainable amount, supply-side solutions, such as growing ethanol, will only create more problems for the future.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pm#99 I agree that ethanol derived on natural gas has not been as efficient as it needs to be ,what I am saying is that technology is evolving and exists today that beats the ratio you mentioned by quite a margin. I have no problem with conservation efforts in conjunction with renewable fuels,I don't think we should wait for the perfect solution before we act.Petroleum based agriculture already has us in an upward spiral and because of the upward price of petroleum, renewables are now competitive.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pmI agree to all who have said that biofuels are not the answer to everyone's energy needs. On the other hand there needs to be a transition period and if those technologies are employed then research will be done on them to improve them because there will be an economic reason to do so. Biofuels are not the holy grail but they can put people in a better frame of thinking as we are weened off of oil. The funny thing is that it HAS to happen someday and why not when we are in a position to do so without panic. All that is needed is some strong leadership. Oh and honest too.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:07 pmDevlin,
You're discussing the use of 'food' as the source of biomass ethanol - as are the research discussions you posted. The world has already changed, and it's much cheaper now to use agri-waste instead of corn or sugar cane for fuels. And Devlin, the cost of sugar was insanely low, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing for brazil or the sugar industry. In 2003 sugar prices were so low that farmers were going bankrupt. But that's a side issue.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:24 pmdlet,
A combination of solar, wind and biofuels and even hydro and wave together are in fact the holy grail. The reason is because all 3 fuels capture the current seasonal energy that hits the earth instead of fossilized energy.
And just as bio fuel innovations are hot, so are wind and solar. All 3 industries have had sizeable breakthroughs in the last 36 months (largely because of the Bush policies that pumped up oil prices). The result is that those industries are getting a jumpstart that they otherwise wouldn't have received in investment and innovations.
Frankly I'd say it was the biggest unintentional gift that Bush gave the country. In his inept attempt to protect the oil industry, he has sealed their fate and ensured their demise. Go George go - keep up the unintentional victories!
The extreme rightwing of a country always destroys itself through ineptitude - we can thank them for their efforts in the republican party. They will destroy both their party and their political friends in the process, and american will be the better for it.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:28 pmA couple of costs associated with fossil fuels that are often overlooked in the "big" picture are:
1) Increased military spending required to sustain a presence in the Middle East
2) Medical costs associated w/ health problems tied to air, water and ground pollution
Also, great posts and links on this thread, RightPunch.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:57 pmJust think of the possibility,
First you do not need Corn to do Bio. You can do it with simple milkweed. No land just drive through the Dekotas or Wyoming where something like 75% of the land is government. Even Bush recently said that soon Bio. will be made of Sawgrass. So how bout spending 200 Billion to set up the farms and refineries.
Americans working for good wages on farms and refineries. American Farm equip> Gee millions of jobs. Gee renewable fuel. Gee no more $70 dollar a barrel going to finance our terrorist friends.
This is not the time to go left and start fighting it's time to reach out for all Americans to force our government to get this process rolling.
With enough noise it can happen but do not make a dem/rep issue that will only cause desention. This is about national security and busting up the oil cartels.
As a national security issue it can get traction the Republicans are high on that issue and if people can be convinced to cross party lines for a change it can happen.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:06 pmDoes anyone remember that Hitler fueled his war machine with biomass and coal tar plus a small contribution from gas fields to the east? It looks like a replay to me, only different players. I am afraid of this ...(I won't say it because Judd would ban me forever).
January 25th, 2006 at 10:11 pmMikeee,
You missed the posts up above, you don't need milkweed, or any other special crops. The current enzymatic systems can convert any agri-waste into ethanol efficiently and cheaply. It's no longer a cost of fuel issue thanks to the technological advancements in recent years.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:12 pmAnd the technology is 65 years old.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:19 pmTonight I heard an address by Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. He had the angle on the biodiesel issue. It is NOT the full solution to the US energy needs, but it could be a much bigger part. That guy is really something. Big Oil better watch out. The Governor is a man with a Plan...
January 25th, 2006 at 10:43 pm#102, RightPunch said: “You’re discussing the use of ‘food’ as the source of biomass ethanol - as are the research discussions you posted. The world has already changed, and it’s much cheaper now to use agri-waste instead of corn or sugar cane for fuels.â€
I am well-aware of the technological improvements and I completely support agri-waste conversion and research, as I do anything that improves energy-efficiency. However, as I said in my last post, there is no alternative, or combination of alternatives, that will be able to compensate for declining fossil fuel supplies, agri-waste included. Therefore ethanol crops will continue to be planted at higher rates as oil becomes increasingly scarce.
Demand is still rising. That’s what we need to deal with.
#102, RightPunch said: “And Devlin, the cost of sugar was insanely low, so this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for brazil or the sugar industry. In 2003 sugar prices were so low that farmers were going bankrupt. But that’s a side issue.â€
As you said, that’s a side issue. I was simply pointing out the trend, which applies to crops other than sugar, including crops unrelated to ethanol production.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:51 pmThe OIL CARTELS are criminals!!!
They are greedy blood-sucking vampires!!!
The sooner we kick the need for petroleum, all the better!!!
January 25th, 2006 at 11:12 pmI see we're over a hundred comments, so there's no chance anybody's gonna read this, but here goes. Things get so very particularly weird at the interface between politics and technology, especially when lots of money is involved. This is what makes energy policy so interesting. Never underestimate the difficulties and delays in developing new technologies. Biofuels, solar panels, and solar powered turbines are all fruitful areas of for development that should be funded. Fusion too, though that's been almost working all of my life, and will probably be almost working for the rest of my life. But even if you fund these things as much as anyone can figure out how to spend money on them, you may or may not get favorable results anytime soon.
Here's a point to ponder. There is one technology already developed that produces no CO2 and could feasibly ramp up to take on a large fraction of our energy use in a couple decades. It's nuclear. It is interesting to ponder whether it is preferable to die from global warming, or to die from nuclear waste. But it is an academic point, because we all know we're going to die from global warming -- nuclear plants are politically infeasible. The right hates them, because nuclear plants would put Big Coal out of business; and the left hates them because they prefer the fantasy that some alternative like biofuel is going to save the day.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:49 pm#97 3Gs - Alberta is experiencing a gold rush. If you can spell 'oil sands' or know what SAGD stands for, you've got a job. The road from Edmonton to Fort McMurray is currently the most dangerous stretch of road in Canada. There state wants to widen it, but can't keep the workers long enough on the job to get going (they all take jobs in the Fort). I heard a rumor that people are renting their closets out as beds for $100CAD a night? Can anyone verify that? You can't get a hotel room in the Fort for less than 2 weeks advance notice.
As for the oil sands themselves, I fired off a comment in #69. If you follow James Kunstler at all, he advocates that it will be a choice between Albertans heating their homes or digging up oil sands. In any case the marginal costs of turning the sands into usable oil are such that in no way can it be considered the same as West Texas crude which is far easier to lift. If the price at the pump is too high, it does not matter how much there is, the US way of life is 'not negotiable' as Dick Cheney says, but not the way he thinks.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:49 pm#112 - I read it Dave. I agree with comment about the difficulties of developing new technology. Look at the hydrogen economy for example. Its taken 100 years to build up the gasoline infrastructure, a station on every corner, terminals, refineries and so on - so do we think we can swtich to hydrogen overnight? We can't use the existing stuff, hydrogen is notoriously hard to contain and ship. I can't understand why the continued investment in oil and gas is considered the answer or this 'waiting around for the market to bring new technology'. To me that's like stoking the engine up on the Titanic after the iceberg has been spotted.
So nuclear. Certainly the French and Swedish dedication to nukes will stand them in good stead as the peak oil/gas passes. And maybe the desperation that will set in will water down the environmental costs/risks. BUt they are there none the less - the UKs old 50s era reactors are going to cost $100 billion to clean up at least. Will the market pay for that? Hell no, the taxpayer.
And my final thought. Even if nukes can be used to generate power, 60% of oil is currently used to power cars, trucks, aircraft, lawnmowers, chainsaws, lifting gear, construction gear, farm equipment, fertilizer etc etc, not to mention the chemicals, plastics, etc all around us. To get to the nuclear economy sounds good, but what about the ubiquity of the combustion engine and the chemicals - how are you going to build those nukes when you can't fuel the cranes?
January 25th, 2006 at 11:58 pm"The right hates them, because nuclear plants would put Big Coal out of business; and the left hates them because they prefer the fantasy that some alternative like biofuel is going to save the day. Dave"
The fantasy comment is out of line Dave. There's nothing fantasy about biomass, solar or wind. They're all feasible and cost effective technology dependingon the requirements. And lets not forget that nuclear MUST be placed very lose to population centers to avoid largescale loss in power through transmission. This means that a very dangerous system that is susceptible to sabotage and environmental disaster are ticking bombs in urban areas. Not a very smart idea from any perspective.
And then lets talk about the spent nuclear fuels that are becoming increasingly hard to store. These fuels are radioactive for a long time, and can leak into water and soil. 238U has a half-life of 4,468,000,000 years, and do you believe you can build a containment environment that will protect it for very long without failure?
You talk a lot about fantasy and politics, but the hard science disagrees with your conclusion. The fantasy is that nuclear is somehow a savior - when in fact it's yet another 'problem' technology instead of a sustainable one. What you fail to recognize is that solar, wind and biomass are all sustainable technologies - and therefore are part of the right set of solutions as opposed to more wrong solutions.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:53 am#114: I'm glad you brought up chemicals. My dad worked in the chemical biz, and he was fond of saying that it should be a crime to burn petroleum or coal, because they are the only feasible sources of innumerable industrially important chemicals. Of course, now we know a second reason why burning them should be a crime. Anyhow, if we ever get to the happy state of not burning oil and coal, we'll still need them (in much smaller quantities) for chemicals. (I confess I am unclear on how fertilizer is gotten out of petroleum, so I can't comment on that.)
I should have clarified that I was thinking of nuclear as a stopgap, not a long term solution. At the rate we're going, we'll double the already high level of atmospheric CO2 in something like 50 years. This should scare the pants off everyone. It suggests that no matter how diligently we go about implementing a biofuel/solar/whatever long term solution, we'll have already destroyed the planet by the time we're done saving it. By ramping up nuclear now, we can ramp down coal, and if I recall correctly coal is about half of our CO2 emission. Then when we get the long term solution going, it can replace oil and the nuclear plants.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:05 amDave,
I can understand your concern, but as I understand it we can implement solar/biofuel/wind long before we could build and refine enough nuclear fuel and plants. It would seem that you've got your strategies and feasibilities in reverse.
Biomass ethanol is already significantly cheaper than gasoline. Solar pays for itself in a few years. Wind pays for itself in much less time than solar.
Nuclear is all gap, no stop-gap unfortunately.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:13 amRightPunch - got a couple comments. Let's start with wind. Wind, like hydro, is fated to be a minor player. People should build as many of these as they can, because it's probably the all-time cleanest energy technology -- but unfortunately, there just isn't enough wind. BTW, geothermal is in this same category.
Biofuel and solar, on the other hand, do have the potential to supply all our energy needs.
I see we have a disagreement on the relative time scale of ramping up nuclear vs biofuel/solar. Here's a few reasons I think nuclear would be quicker. There are a few companies in the world today who you can order a nuclear power plant from, of a size appropriate for powering a large city. They'd be happy to start work today.
In contrast, the Dept of Energy has a pilot solar-powered electrical plant, which I believe is the largest in the world, which turns out something like 10 megawatts. This is enough to power a small town, and it would have to be a small town where there's minimal cloud cover.
I don't know of an existing biofuel project that's even that big.
So there's significant development work needed before we really get started.
I'd love to be proved wrong.
BTW, when you're worrying about nuclear waste, you don't want to concentrate on the 4 billion year stuff. The thousand-ten thousand year stuff is much scarier -- the emission rate is a million times greater, but it still lasts, in human terms, a real long time.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:08 am#112 Dave your arguement for necular wouldn't be bad if we had an energy source that we could replace OIL with in order to power the mines, where we get the nuclear fuel, then replace the oil we use to transport the nuclear fuel to processing and enriichment plants, once enriched the oil to transport the nuclear fuel to the plants, I haven't even started in about the OIL that we use both as a base for thefuel that operates 99.9% of the machinery to grow and transport the food which the workers for the nuclear industry depend on to live. And since natural gas is the basis of almost all fertilizers that are used to produce the food, and the natural gas is linked to the oil, because they are found together and produced in the same way, so to propose a solution like nuclear to replace oil when the entire nuclear industry relies on oil to operate, well it shows a lack of understanding the real limits that the decline of oil will place upon and modern society. Generating electricity, which is the primary role that we use nuclear reactors for in the civilian world, can be done without the capital, labor intensive, highly centralised, large plants which are energy intensive to operate. The problem with oil is it is the fuel that RUNS the entire economy, we can't move very much without it. Most 21st industrial manufactoring plants operate on the just in time inventory for the delivery of the component parts of their products, as the price of oil rises the costs of menufactoring rises hence the final cost, also the price to ship to wholesale and retail outlets rise which also costs to rise, thus when oil becomes more scarce and more expensive the ripple effect runs through the economy. This will have a disasterous effect upon the world financial markets, which will cause an economic downturn, and since the basic energy source is declining there is no way to rebound unless a new energy source can be found that will provide the flexability that oil provides as an energy source. It must be easily transportable, very easy to store, uneffected by the different climatic conditions found around the world and be abundant enough to replace the approxmately 80,000,000 barrels of oil used each and every day onthis planet, and with the economies of india and china expanding repidly that figure is going to rise.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:36 amlooks like big oil finally killed off Detroit. Don't you hate it when one big slobbering, greedy, obnoxious, blood sucking industry kills another.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:57 am.
#121 Well, by now many supercomputers, if not all, are made of multiparallel smaller CPUs. Computer science has discovered that parallel computing is far better than a single giantic CPU (~mainframe), and is far easier scallable, with adequate multithread programming, thus multiplying the effectivity.
Bringing this to oil efficiency would bring the same benefits: saving individually would save the country the energy equivalent of ANWAR reserve, and much more. Stopping the corporate welfare to energy industry, and making them to implement the later technologies would make them more proficient in energy production and less pollution, who would bring less health issues, who is also a saving. Mandatory efficient cars and trucks would reduce their consumption of oil and pollution, too. Taxes (yes, taxes) on less efficient cars, to make them more expensive (Hi, 7 Hummer Schwarzy). Public transports and car pooling would help too.
All that would help too in lesser dependency on foreing oil, less military clashes with future competitors (China, India, Russia somebody?), and more time to develop "sci-fi" solutions...
January 26th, 2006 at 7:38 amAt best, it’s a poor net gain, at worst it consumes more kjoules of energy than it produces (all things being considered).
Comment by roundup #9
roundeye,
spoken like a true douche bag,
What kind of voodoo science do you have to back it up?
January 26th, 2006 at 7:53 amWe might as well admit it, for the next three years we have a "black gold" administration in power whose only mission is to protect their enormous investment in the status quo...
Anything that interferes with that and helps the poor to boot - "fuhgetaboutit-
plutocratic government is not interested in "the greater good", only investment returns...
There'll be NO bio-fuel development as long as there's a republiscum in the White House and majority controlling the House and Senate...
January 26th, 2006 at 7:56 am#Practice saying Justice Samuel Alito. Just one more liberal needs to step down before a true conservative majority is formed.
Oh well, you can still live in fairy tale land and pretend Bush is spying on you.
Comment by Innocent Lite — January 25, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Hes just another Borker. They will say anything to get confirmed. Heres Roberts First 'Loss' and Yet another to Bushco;
January 26th, 2006 at 8:22 amhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law.
It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members —
Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas — in a long but restrained dissent.
The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General
John Ashcroft.
The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide.
As far as MR BIO man and his cant find the Links, but trust me. Its a FACT (Wwallace syndrome) Jackass Dem seems he has forgotten how many oil wells in the US have been quietly shut down, Reducing American Capacity.
America IS the Second Largest Producer of OIL. Look at the San Andreas Fault Line. I know for a Fact they have been drilling in the Middle of Los Angeles for Oil last year, right under your noses.
Now Show us some FACTS mr trust me Jackass Dem.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:27 amHemp OIL is not only a Viable source of energy, the material is very much like cotton and can be sewn into garments as well. Not to mention Hemp oil Soaps Shampoos, cleaners, etc..
January 26th, 2006 at 8:30 amMany forget that at one point the Christians ate hemp seed gruel to survive (Hemp seed near perfect food) and hemp seed, or the Extracts of are used in Ice Cream and many other products TODAY.
#Biofuels appear to be a good way to help solve the energy crisis until one considers the thermodymics involved in the food-to-fuels conversion. At best, it’s a poor net gain, at worst it consumes more kjoules of energy than it produces (all things being considered).
Comment by roundup — January 25, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Well I can point to some patents for Motionless Generators and Scalar field devices. One such device was patented years ago and installed in the ICBM missiles. NOTE; This is not Free energy but a very high C.O.P.
Many of these Inventors, such as the Wankle C.O.P. Motor have been bought out or silenced by big oil.
The Soviets claim that very deep oil reserves actually replenish themselves thru the Earths lower crusts.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:38 amFrom USGS
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/tectonics.html
Fossil fuels
Oil and natural gas are the products of the deep burial and decomposition of accumulated organic material in geologic basins that flank mountain ranges formed by plate-tectonic processes. Heat and pressure at depth transform the decomposed organic material into tiny pockets of gas and liquid petroleum, which then migrate through the pore spaces and larger openings in the surrounding rocks and collect in reservoirs, generally within 5 km of the Earth's surface.
#126 They aren't trying to protect their status quo, they are trying to totally dominate,The five countries that will dominate the oil market from this time foward....Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and the United Arab Emeraits, with Saudia Arabia and Kuwait all ready "in their Pocket" bushco, inc. is going after the other Iraq (invasion complete) and Iran, then they will controll the major OPEC power brokers and the world oil market, Kinda makes the vanishing WMD argument more understandable.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:42 amI meant #125 the numbers keep changing
January 26th, 2006 at 8:48 amComment by unbelievable:
I live close to my job, use public transportation when available and walk to places within a 2 mile radius. I grow a garden in the summer. I stopped watching commercials and limit my television to 3 to 5 hours per week. When I go to the store, I go with a list and only go where these items lie (incredible how much I was spending on nothing of value that just fattens the wallets of Corporate America). Not only am I decreasing my dependence on the BIG Corporate Industries, but I now have considerably less stress in my life, and, as a result am regularly mistaken for being considerably younger than my real age. It’s not just about ’sticking it to the man’, but about living in harmony and balance with the earth - as we should be.
Sounds like a lot of common sense. I too, would like to change my life: Can you state some books or websites that have pointers about this?
January 26th, 2006 at 12:01 pmNot only am I decreasing my dependence on the BIG Corporate Industries, but I now have considerably less stress in my life, and, as a result am regularly mistaken for being considerably younger than my real age. It’s not just about ’sticking it to the man’, but about living in harmony and balance with the earth - as we should be.
Comment by unbelievable
I envy you your ability to live the spartan life...
January 26th, 2006 at 12:54 pmWhere's that "roundeye" fool and his proof?
I could've disproved or not "The Origin of Species" in this amount of time...
January 26th, 2006 at 12:56 pmWired Mag had a great feature on oil-alternatives in December '05. The whole piece is available here.
Linked on that page are the article's wonderful graphics. Under the heading "$30-$70" in the side bar, they show that the USA has about 1/100th (roughly--I am estimating off their highly stylized chart) the arable land to produce enough soybeans to make enough biodiesel to replace the amount of oil we used last year.
Ethanol is a different story, but still drastic: According to their sources, we only produce corn with a tiny fraction of the arable land in this country, but if we instead grew corn on 1/4 or so of the arable land available to us, we could make enough ethanol to replace the oil amount of oil we used last year.
Of course, then there is the question of fertilizing the crops--current inorganic fertilizers are made in chemical plants powered by coal or what have you from a large number of oil products. And the pesticides we use are all hydrocarbon derived using massive amounts of energy, in most cases from coal. And the tractors to plant and reap the crops, plus the trucks to transport the grain or soy... We've got a LONG way to go.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:30 pmEthanol Study
January 27th, 2006 at 10:11 amhttp://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/
January 27th, 2006 at 10:13 amPlease read the article before making foolish comments. They are talking about cellulose ethanol from crop waste and Prairie grasses not corn starch! Using Hemp cellulose would make sense after we replaced cotton fabric and wood paper with hemp cloth and paper. Using hemp seed for biodiesel is idiotic. Hemp seed is one of the best sources of Omega-3 fatty acids available. Switchgrass is a Great Plains perennial Prairie grass that requires very little watter, no pesticides, and little fertilizer. It grows where corn fails and you cut it and it grows back, just like your lawn, but it can produce twice the ethanol per acre as corn can according to DOE and USDA experts.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:11 am#138 what foolish comment?
January 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pmSounds like a lot of common sense. I too, would like to change my life: Can you state some books or websites that have pointers about this?
Comment by realist67 — January 26, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry for the delay, I've been trying to teach a troll that the reflection in the mirror is his... after all, they teach chimps to do it... much easier with an ape than a troll.
Gee, I guess I just started making small incremental changes. Not sure about books or websites to suggest.
But turning off the television, especially during commericals makes a huge difference.
I guess just think about where you spend you money, and how you could cut back, or find it cheaper. You're right - most of it is common sense.
Good luck!
January 29th, 2006 at 12:06 pmI envy you your ability to live the spartan life…
Comment by big papa — January 26, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
It's like anything - just one day at a time :)
January 29th, 2006 at 12:07 pmThis biofuels argument approaches the ridiculous for a reason that seems to be completely omitted from the discussion:
Biofuels are produced from biological material -- plants and plant products, typically. These plants have to come from somewhere, and in most of the world, that's a monoculture farming operation. Operations on the scale required to provide a 1 for 1 swap on energy sources from oil to ethanol and biodiesel would be absolutely enormous. Assuming that were done, the way we do farming requires a lot of fertilizer. And where does the nitrogen in most fertilizer products come from? Petrochemicals -- Oil. So while the process is cleaner in the emissions sense, it is still ultimately a petrochemical product. You cannot simply make a counter-argument like "use another source" or "do it organically" without first having a sense of the scale this would require.
Further, with the increase in demand these fuels would place on farm markets, does that mean that there would develop an economic calculus that determines the choice between feeding people and cars in times of depressed global crop production?
The real choice is not about energy use, but about lifestyle itself. Those of us in the west, Europe and especially North America need to drop cars. Move into town, live densely and close together, use bicycles and slow down the pace of our lives. It seems to work for the places in the world that have adopted it.
This isn't an technical issue, ultimately, it's a choice we're going to make about the way our lives will be lied now and in the future. Because your choices now can affect generations, you really are making a decision for other people. You need to be very clear about what kind of world you want to hand your children based on careful consideration of actual facts, not wishes and poorly understood technofixes.
Good luck, and Goodnight.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:53 pmwhat can you say about the economic effects that the biofuels brought to us
December 9th, 2006 at 4:44 am