Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Offshore drilling raises oil prices*

By Joe Romm  

"Offshore drilling raises oil prices*"

Share:

google plus icon

*That would be my headline if Climate Progress were the Washington Post or President Bush.

After all, at the end of 2006, the Republican Congress and the president enacted “The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act,” which opened 8.3 million acres of the Outer Continental shelf for drilling. Yet oil prices were only $60 a barrel then. Now prices have more than have doubled. Doesn’t that prove that legislation to permit offshore drilling increases oil prices? That seems to be the logic of the Post and our President.

Bush’s radio address lies remarks are reprinted verbatim in the Washington Post today:

In his radio address Saturday, Bush said that “technological advances have allowed us to explore oil offshore in ways that protect the environment” and that outer continental shelf areas now off limits could produce enough oil to match America’s current production for almost 10 years.”

monkeybutt.jpgYes, and monkeys could fly out of my butt. But 99% of doctors say that is not going to happen (a few doctors funded by ExxonMobil say it will if we just do nothing). And Bush’s own energy analysts say we might get 150,000 barrels a day in the 2020s if we lift the remaining federal moratorium on offshore drilling (see “The cruel offshore-drilling hoax“). Note to Post: 150,000 barrels a day isn’t quite America’s current production rate.

In fact, buried deep in the piece, the Post does point out something first reported on Climate Progress almost a month ago:

A report last year by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.” It added, “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

[Note: That link in the Post is not to the the EIA report. God forbid a major newspaper actually has a useful hyperlink, rather than an utterly useless one pointing back to its own website. And they say bloggers are solipsistic! The EIA study is here.]

And yet the Post headline is:

Offshore Drilling Backed as Remedy for Oil Prices

Push for U.S. Exploration Gains Traction, but Big Political Hurdles Remain

So neither the headline or the subhead bothers to mention that there is no factual basis for the headline. Very sad.

The Washington Post must do a better job on its coverage of energy issues, rather than simply reprinting disinformation of “experts.” The op-Ed page is one thing — they pretty much let anybody say anything about global warming there (see Krauthammer’s strange denier talk points, Part 1: Newton’s laws were “overthrown”).

But their front-page story is verging on tabloid stuff, which seems to be part of a long slide for the paper — don’t get me started on the 13-part series the Post has Just started on “Who Killed Chandra Levy?” Yes, 13-part. How about a 13-part series on “Who killed Serious Journalism?”

‹ The Bridge to Nowhere

Bush To Lift Presidential Moratorium On Offshore Drilling Established By Father ›

41 Responses to Offshore drilling raises oil prices*

  1. Confused says:

    What is this liberal garbage? You cannot possibly believe this, can you?

  2. Brian says:

    Read the whole post. It is supposed to be a misleading headline, like the one used in the Post. It is OK to be confused; we liberals forgive you for not understanding sarcasm. It is a complex concept.

  3. Joe says:

    I annoyed a someone who is confused. Or vice versa. Either way, another successful day of blogging!

  4. Amy says:

    Great post! Articles like that in the WaPo are probably part of the reason more and more Americans are hopping on the offshore drilling wagon. People are actually being led to believe offshore drilling is going to help their wallets, and far be it from the majority of the population to look into the actual facts! We need the truth printed front and center, or I’m afraid most people aren’t going to catch it.

  5. GLACI3R TG says:

    A misleading headline, but a clear message to us all…

  6. ed says:

    WOW how confused you people are, We should allow offshore drilling because if we dont do it some other country like china will sorry should say is doing. We have some protection well at least from the tree huggers watching big oil companys here in the us.Nothing will help our wallets until we dont use oil as fuel source.

  7. John Hollenberg says:

    Ed, are you a relative of the poster who goes by the handle Confused?

  8. Stats is your friend says:

    What would be wrong with reducing consumption to 60% of current levels AND supplying a majority of our oil from domestic resources? All this “you have to be on one side or the other” and “If you don’t agree with me you are a moron” crap is counterproductive and only serves to make individuals on both sides look retarded. We need to get ourselves off foreign oil. If we reduce our consumption and increase our domestic production, we may be able to achieve this goal in 5 to 10 years. One or the other by themselves will likely not be enough. If we’d done this 5 or ten years ago, we wouldn’t be faced with the issues we are dealing with today.

  9. C Mann says:

    There seems to be a bad link to the left of the Flying Monkeys cartoon. Some extra date characters in there.

  10. Earl Killian says:

    Stats, Joe proposes reducing consumption by high-efficiency and switching using electricity as the primary fuel. It is unclear what benefit further drilling provides in this scenario. Imagine a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that gets 80% of its miles from electricity, and 20% from liquid fuel. Imagine it gets 60 MPG when running on liquid fuel (33% of where we are today). Imagine that liquid fuel is E85 (15% gasoline). Gasoline use is then 20%*33%*15% = 1%. Even with the expected increase in usage from increasing population, this is small enough.

  11. Stats is your friend says:

    Earl,
    In order for those numbers to work, the majority of vehicles on the road would have to use that technology. I fail to see how that will be possible in a 5 to 10 year time frame. Any capable technology will be expensive in the first few years. If the median income is 40K a year, in order for the median person to afford one of these vehicles, it would have to cost less than 20k.

    Then how do we go about forcing everyone to purchase one of these vehicles, especially as gas prices drop, due to reduced demand, to the point that it is very financially attractive to use gasoline vs. oil. A large portion of the population can’t afford a new car now, much less a new technology car that is likely to be more expensive for the first few years.

    One thing I haven’t heard ( and honestly have no idea) is how much of an increase in electric power capacity would be needed if all cars switched to electricity? What are these costs going to be, because the consumers who can afford them will wind up paying for them, and those who can’t will likely rely on gasoline until maybe a 5 to 10 year old chevy volt becomes cheap enough to purchase used.

    There seem to me to be alot of unknowns in this equation.

  12. Stats is your friend says:

    Sorry, where I said gasoline vs. oil, i meant vs. electricity.

  13. Stats is your friend says:

    Joe,

    I clicked on the link to see where “And Bush’s own energy analysts say we might get 150,000 barrels a day in the 2020s if we lift the remaining federal moratorium on offshore drilling” but I didn’t see anything discussing this on the page it sent me to. Could you post an updated link? That’s kind of interesting if it’s true.

  14. One of the "stupid" Republicans says:

    Brian, sorry we don’t understand your “complex” sarcasm. We Republicans understand facts and statistics better than sarcastic attacks. Excuse us for being so stupid.

  15. Stats is your friend says:

    Interesting report by the EIA.

    Following is a quote regarding the EIA analysis of ANWR ( I personally think Alaska is where we need to drill). I will admit that by the time it peaks, according to this report, we could be deeper into widespread use of electric/ cars. Remember we currently produce 5.5 million barrels a day. This will raise that to between 6 or 7. Also remember this analysis is for the coastal plain only. Later it states that similar numbers might be found in the non coastal plains of ANWR. So why not enable the U.S. to sell our excess oil?:

    “The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.
    Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production. Opening ANWR results in the lowest oil import dependency levels during the 2022 through 2026 time frame, when oil import dependency falls to the minimum values of 46 and 49 percent for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively. During that timeframe, the mean resource case and AEO2008 reference case project an average oil import dependency of 48 and 51 percent, respectively. Because ANWR oil production is declining after 2028, U.S. oil dependency rises to 51 percent in 2030 in the mean resource case, compared to 54 percent in the AEO2008 reference case. The high and low resource cases project a 2030 oil import dependency of 48 percent and 52 percent, respectively.
    Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR improves the U.S. balance of trade. Cumulative expenditures on foreign crude oil and liquid fuels between 2018 and 2030 are reduced by $202 billion dollars (2006 dollars) in the mean oil resource case and reduced by $135 and $327 billion dollars in the low and high oil resource cases, respectively.”

    in full here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

  16. Stats is your friend says:

    Sorry for the long post, but if we had done this a decade ago…….

  17. Jim says:

    Stats,

    So, what do we do once ANWR is dry?

    If all we are after is cheap oil prices so that we can simply waste the resource I say that ain’t good enough.

    It is estimated that ANWR holds about 21 billion barrels of oil. This is about 3 years’ U.S. consumption (currently).

    What do you think of pickensplan.com ?

    Thanks…

  18. Jim says:

    To “One of the “stupid” Republicans Says”:

    We are all frineds here remember?

    Don’t get pulled into the mud, no matter who is doing the pulling (or pushing).

    We need to get our energy policy right. If we don’t, well, all of the plans, initiatives, everything, doesn’t really matter.

    Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, and yes even coal and oil (until the others can come up to speed and become more economically viable).

    With respect.

  19. Bill says:

    The U.S. spends $700 billion every year on foreigh oil. Imagine if that money were directed inwards to the U.S. economy?

    Boggles the mind.

    We ship $700 billion over seas to rogue nations and then wonder why they have our balls in a sling.

    Until we are energy free we are not free.

    As long as we are at the mercy of foreign oil we are renting instead of owning.

    So, what are we, the landlord or the tennant?

  20. Stats is your friend says:

    Jim,

    I’m not necessarily looking for cheap oil, which I see as a double edged sword. I’m proud of all the cool technologies and gadgets our country is producing. Opening ANWR will likely not cause a major reduction in oil prices by itself. It will cause, at current consumption, a decrease in US dependency on foreign oil from 70+% to 50% for a few decades. We’ll still have high oil prices if supply and demand is truly the cause ( I think speculation plays a huge role too) because on the global stage this is just a drop in the bucket. But what if we could not only reduce our own consumption as we turn to new technologies over the next 20 years, but then export to all the countries still reliant on oil and make up a little for the massive imbalance we’ve experienced for the last 3 decades.

    Off my soapbox

  21. Earl Killian says:

    Stats said, “In order for those numbers to work, the majority of vehicles on the road would have to use that technology. I fail to see how that will be possible in a 5 to 10 year time frame.

    Opening restricted areas to drilling does nothing significant in 5 to 10 years. Why do you suggest an earlier time frame for efficiency than drilling? To match ANWR’s 780,000 barrels a day, you need 31 million PHEV-20s on the roads in 2027. I think it is reasonable to do 45 million by then.

    Second, efficiency can do more than you probably suspect in 5 to 10 years. For example, if the Federal government were to adopt California’s AB1493, we’d have a number of more efficient vehicles on the road in 10 years.

    Stats says, “One thing I haven’t heard ( and honestly have no idea) is how much of an increase in electric power capacity would be needed if all cars switched to electricity? What are these costs going to be, because the consumers who can afford them will wind up paying for them, and those who can’t will likely rely on gasoline until maybe a 5 to 10 year old chevy volt becomes cheap enough to purchase used.

    Figure you need 330 Wh/mi at the power plant. Multiply by the number of vehicle miles. For today’s 2.77 trillion miles per year, that works out to 914 TWh/year. Recent U.S. generation was 4,065 TWh/year. No new plants are necessary to supply the power, because utilities have excess generation capability at night when plug-ins would charge. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory says we could charge 84% of our cars etc. using the existing infrastructure.

    Stats said, “but if we had done this a decade ago…

    It would have been far better to have increase CAFE a decade ago.

    Stats said, “a decrease in US dependency on foreign oil from 70+% to 50% for a few decades.

    I’m having a hard time seeing how 780,000 barrels a day reduces imports by anything close to this. According to the EIA web pages, in 2007 we produced 5,103,000 barrels a day and imported 12,040,000 barrels a day. ANWR is just 4.5% of the sum of those.

  22. Earl Killian says:

    Bill, that’s an argument for reducing US consumption to below US production. That is possible with PHEV-20s. It is not possible by increasing US production to greater than our consumption.

  23. Stats is your friend says:

    Earl,

    First, I beleive that we currently import 70% of our oil. The IEA study I quoted is where i got the 50% after number from, and the study actually states around 45%, but I always take a haircut off of other predictions. That’s at current consumption.

    You are correct that opening reserves to drilling does nothing in a 10 year time frame. Neither will alt vehicles.

    1) Say that there are enough alt fuel vehicles by 2027. Excellent. We’ll have them, china likely won’t. China has been gaining control of our economy for years. So we now have no dependence of our own, and we are able to sell oil, with profits benefiting our nation. Why not sell ANWR oil? If Alaska doesn’t care, why should we?

    2) articles I’ve read that show that there will not be a required increase in power generation due to electric vehicles, also show only a 25% market penetration of hybrid and electric vehicles in the 2020′s, leaving a lot of conventional vehicles needing oil on the road. Any further penetration will require growth, according to sources such as this. Example here: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005067.html

    3), and I apologize because this may be beyond the intended scope of this blog, you are making the assumption that work will continue on alternatives to oil at the current pace. Right now no one seems to know if the current high oil prices are here to stay or are just a bubble. In my semi informed opinion ( I work in finance in an industry quite reliant on oil, but by no means do I think of myself as any sort of expert), I think this is a bubble. If gas prices fall, people will forget. Especially when facing expensive battery replacements every 20k miles. I believe that given enough time, this battery problem could be solved, but the public’s short memory span is part of the reason we are here. If gas drops back down to $2 a gallon, growth in alternatives will be stunted once more. At least for a while, until the next crisis. Due to the number of problems our country may or may not be facing, real or imaginary, the government will turn its attention to other issues, cause thats what voters will want.

    4) the government won’t increase federal standards until they are absolutely positive american automakers can keep up or beat foreign competition in getting better cars to the market. I would be shocked to see the feds hammer the final nail into the coffin of the so called big three.

    Bottom line, it’s impossible, no matter what anyone says, to predict the future. Why not prepare for it now. There is currently money to be made in oil, meaning that if we open ANWR, someone may start drilling there, helping ease out any future shocks or issues. I would love to see the increases in auto tech grow at the current pace, but there is no way to be certain that will happen. It depends on market conditions. We’ve had electric cars before, but gas gets cheap, no one cares, development stops.

    After the oil shocks of the 70′s there were ads for either a pinto or vega, i don’t remember which, that ran on electricity. How many of those did you see on the road?

    Thanks, and I look forward to your thoughts.

  24. Stats is your friend says:

    I read that pacific northwest study.

    Very interesting, however there are a few flaws, most of which the study points out. The study assumes that those regions with excess capacity will be able to transmit to those without enough capacity even though that may not be realistic, it assumes that all recharging will be done at night ( likely that most will be done at night), it assumes all cars can go 33 miles a day on each charge, and that that is what is going to be used etc.

    Although this is a very well done analysis, I would like to see several studies done before a judgement can be made. If there are more, please let me know.

    According to this study, even using maximum capacity, oil imports are only reduced by 50%. My goal is to be energy independant. Having 85% of our vehicles run on electricity apparently is not enough.

  25. Stats is your friend says:

    I’ll shut up for a while that the 780k a day is just from the coastal shelf region. There are other regions, that, according to the study, should produce at least as much.

  26. Stats is your friend says:

    Poorly constructed sentence.

    The 780k barrels is just from the coastal shelf region of ANWR. This does not include other regions, which the report states, in an admittedly less than scientific fashion, could LIKELY produce at least as much. I’ll now shut up for a little while.

  27. Earl Killian says:

    Stats said, “I beleive that we currently import 70% of our oil.

    Yes, if you do 12040/(5103+12040), the numbers I quoted from the EIA, you get 70.2%. I saw the 50% quote from the EIA. That’s why I posted the question, because it seems entirely inconsistent with the 780,000 barrels per day. If I do the calculation, it takes the US from 70% imports to 60% (not counting increased consumption, decreased other production).

    Stats said, “You are correct that opening reserves to drilling does nothing in a 10 year time frame. Neither will alt vehicles.

    I agree with the above as far as it goes (remember I was only asking for a level playing field, given your earlier comment). However, what you don’t add is that adopting tougher CAFEs or California’s AB1493 at the Federal level could make a difference before 10 years is out. According to the WSJ, The EPA concluded there was $2 trillion of net societal benefits if we adopted higher MPG standards in response to Massachusetts v. EPA.

    I won’t debate the wisdom of selling ANWR oil to reduce our trade imbalance. I simply wanted to correct what I saw as a misleading slant on the stats being used for a different ANWR justification.

    Stats said, “…leaving a lot of conventional vehicles needing oil on the road. Any further penetration will require growth.

    Do you mean growth of gasoline or of power plants? The pairing above suggests the former, but the link suggest the latter.

    If you create a model of what negawatts could do in the U.S. based upon proven methods, you’re looking at over 1156 TWh per year saved in 2030, and only 241 TWh per year of plug-in charging energy. In 2040 the numbers are 1489 and 731 TWh/year. Thus negawatts alone can charge EVs with savings to spare. However, I instead advocate building wind turbines to power our EVs, and using negawatts to shut down coal power plants (1991 TWh in 2006). Wind is extremely well suited to charging plug-ins, and it is the lowest cost power technology (cheaper than coal according to the California Energy Commission).

    More to follow.

  28. Stats is your friend says:

    Earl,

    In order:

    I am not at all sure where the EIA gets the 45% oil import number from. I’ll have to reread it, however if your math is as correct as it appears to be, I’ll take a 10% reduction any day. I just want movement toward energy independance.

    While it may help if tougher Federal regulations are put in place, I won’t hold my breath on it for the reason I stated before.

    The growth I was refering to is power consumption. According to the link I sent, our current grid can only handle a 25% electric fleet, and any more electric vehicles will require growth to the grid. So either we will still have 75% of our vehicles running on oil, or we will have to upgrade our power system. I am not at all suprised that two different sources give two wildly different numbers. That’s why I want to see more studies, and then take the averages across the board. Numbers are entirely too easy to manipulate.

    I don’t know a whole lot about wind power. From what little I know, you need alot of turbines to generate enough for a major city, but then i should probably learn more before I go shooting my mouth off. Any sources would be appreciated.

  29. Earl Killian says:

    Stats said, “Especially when facing expensive battery replacements every 20k miles.

    This is blatant disinformation. On what basis do you post such a comment? I’m sorry to slam you on this, but your comments so far have been mostly factual or opinion, but this is neither; it is dishonest. Lead-acid batteries have only 20k lifetimes in EVs, but no one is talking about using lead-acid batteries in plug-ins. My family has a 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV in the garage with 81,000 miles on it; the batteries are fine. One sold on eBay recently with 127,000 miles on the odometer. Southern California Edison has fleet data on an older model of the RAV4-EV. The expected mileage is 100k to 150k. Prii have lots of miles on their batteries and are doing great. Lithium-Ion batteries are similarly much better than you suggest. EPRI and Southern California Edison did Lithium-Ion battery testing, and concluded, “battery durability testing sponsored jointly by EPRI and Southern California Edison demonstrate that current lithium-ion batteries are likely to retain sufficient capacity for more than 3000 dynamic deep-discharge cycles–about 10-12 years of typical driving.” Sanyo has a Lithium-Ion battery going into mass production; the writeup said, “the battery ensures a power retention ratio of 80% or higher and a capacity retention ratio of 70% or higher after 10,000 cycles.”

    Stats said, “you are making the assumption that work will continue on alternatives to oil at the current pace. Right now no one seems to know if the current high oil prices are here to stay or are just a bubble. In my semi informed opinion ( I work in finance in an industry quite reliant on oil, but by no means do I think of myself as any sort of expert), I think this is a bubble.

    I think a recession will reduce gas prices, but that is different from it being a bubble, IMO.

    During the 1970s Governor Reagan first vetoed the Warren-Alquist energy efficiency bill passed by the legislature, and then turned around and signed it when things got bad. I think that might happen at the Federal level today. California has continued to add to that effort ever since, and the dividends have been enormous, even after Californians went on the worry about other things. Similarly Carter pushed efficiency at the Federal level, but when Reagan got into the White House, the recession had cooled energy prices, and he undid Carter’s work, and that’s why we are in the bind we are today. This Tale of Two Energy efforts is not lost on the Federal government, and I think they are more likely to take the California route the second time around. The government need not even pass legislation; all it will take is the White House to stop interfering with the EPA’s plan to answer the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA mandate. As reported by the WSJ, it came up with further efficiency increases with $2 trillion of net societal benefits.

    Stats said, “If gas prices fall, people will forget.

    California passed AB1493 before the recent gas price increase, and for other reasons. Once legislation like that is passed, we can sit back and reap the benefits while the county goes on to forget and focus on scandals, but the savings keep on accruing.

    California showed that the political will and leadership on this sort of thing are possible. It would be best to pass the equivalent of AB1493, SB1368, SB107, Title 20, and Title 24 at the Federal level, but even without that, the EPA could do it, based on the Clean Air Act. Probably in January 2009 it will start to do so.

    Stats says, “There is currently money to be made in oil, meaning that if we open ANWR, someone may start drilling there, helping ease out any future shocks or issues.

    Making money is one thing, but again you’ve got to stop justifying greed with false claims about oil shocks. ANWR won’t have any significant effect upon the world oil market, as you admit elsewhere, and only the world market matters in oil shocks until the day the US closes its borders to both imports and exports. (Possible with plug-ins, not with drilling.)

  30. Earl Killian says:

    Correction, I wrote “it takes the US from 70% imports to 60% (not counting increased consumption, decreased other production),” but the 60% should have read 66%. I.e. the change is only from 70% to 66%.

    Stats said, “The 780k barrels is just from the coastal shelf region of ANWR. This does not include other regions, which the report states, in an admittedly less than scientific fashion, could LIKELY produce at least as much.

    Producing “as much”, i.e. another 780,000 barrels a day, gets you from 66% down to 61%. That’s still not 50%.

  31. Earl Killian says:

    Stats said, “The growth I was refering to is power consumption. According to the link I sent, our current grid can only handle a 25% electric fleet, and any more electric vehicles will require growth to the grid. So either we will still have 75% of our vehicles running on oil, or we will have to upgrade our power system. I am not at all suprised that two different sources give two wildly different numbers. That’s why I want to see more studies, and then take the averages across the board. Numbers are entirely too easy to manipulate.

    You apparently did not read what you linked to, you would not have written the above, or you decided to selectively quote from it. They study said the grid could handle a lot more than you suggest. Allow me to quote from your link for you (some emphasis added):

    In an analysis of the potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles projected for 2020 and 2030 in 13 regions of the United States, ORNL researchers explored their potential effect on electricity demand, supply, infrastructure, prices and associated emission levels. Electricity requirements for hybrids used a projection of 25 percent market penetration of hybrid vehicles by 2020 including a mixture of sedans and sport utility vehicles. Several scenarios were run for each region for the years 2020 and 2030 and the times of 5 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., in addition to other variables.

    The report found that the need for added generation would be most critical by 2030, when hybrids have been on the market for some time and become a larger percentage of the automobiles Americans drive. In the worst-case scenario—if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m., at six kilowatts of power—up to 160 large power plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce the reserve power margins for a particular region’s system.

    The best-case scenario occurs when vehicles are plugged in after 10 p.m., when the electric load on the system is at a minimum and the wholesale price for energy is least expensive. Depending on the power demand per household, charging vehicles after 10 p.m. would require, at lower demand levels, no additional power generation or, in higher-demand projections, just eight additional power plants nationwide.

    In other words, what you did is quote the worst-case scenario, based upon charging at 5pm.

    Please note that our 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV has a timer that starts charging at a time of your choice. This makes it trivial to shift charge time to 10pm, i.e. what ORNL calls the best-case scenario, or midnight or whatever. Hardly high-tech. What is even better is what is mentioned in the ORNL article (give it a read). It is extremely unlikely that our nation would go down a path of deploying a large fleet of PHEVs without charging feedback. The payback from letting the utilities control charging is great.

  32. Earl Killian says:

    Stats said, “I don’t know a whole lot about wind power. From what little I know, you need alot of turbines to generate enough for a major city, but then i should probably learn more before I go shooting my mouth off. Any sources would be appreciated.

    You could start at
    http://www.awea.org/faq/

    Example:

    How much land is needed for a utility-scale wind plant?

    In open, flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per megawatt of installed capacity. However, only 5% (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment–95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. In California, Minnesota, Texas, and elsewhere, wind energy provides rural landowners and farmers with a supplementary source of income through leasing and royalty arrangements with wind power developers.

    A wind plant located on a ridgeline in hilly terrain will require much less space, as little as two acres per megawatt.

    For more in depth stuff, I suggest the work of Jacobson and Archer:
    http://www.stanford.edu/~lozej/publications.html
    e.g. Supplying baseload power and reducing transmissions requirements by interconnecting wind farms

    Jaconson has an article in-press that you should definitely look for when it is out: Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

  33. Stats is your friend says:

    I stand corrected on the battery life. I’m not sure where I got my information from, but I can tell you it is an often repeated misconception. I should have checked my facts before posting it, and I apologize for not. That being said:

    I’m starting to get a little angry. I’ve gone to Oak Ridge’s site, but all they post is the press release itself, I want to see the study. I’ll keep looking.

    All scenarios for 2020 used a mere 25% market penetration. That means that either:

    1) 75% of cars still use oil, so we’ll still need quite a bit of the stuff

    2) or, if more than 25%, these projections will have to modified accordingly. For example, if 50% of vehicles are replaced by 2020, then you’ll have to double the draw and go from there. I’m not at all slanting this, I’m just repeating the fact that this article states, in the best case scenario, that there is more than enough capacity to provide power if the fleet of hybrid cars if the fleet consist of only 25% of all cars. I would love to see the actual study to see how to escalate this to say, 50% of all vehicles by 2020. The article also states that there may be problems by 2030 when there is a higher percentage of electric cars, but never says what that higher percentage of vehicles is. Could be 35% could be 100. until I can see the freakin study, I have no way of knowing.

    According to this site, it is still 25% in 2030, which contradicts the press release:

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/ornl-study-expl.html

    the more studies I see, the more comfortable I get, but as yet I’ve only really seen one.

    IMHO California’s laws are just that, california’s laws. i don’t see them being adopted by many other states or by the fed anytime soon, although, of course, I’m basing that on my own views of the way california’s environmental laws usually play out on the national stage. Not being a californian, let me ask you is it fair to say that many of california’s laws are partially due to the prevention of air pollution that may or may not ( has it cleared up, I don’t know) exist around its major cities?

    Other states may not have a similar problem that they feel a strong need to address, at this time.

    The main reason I don’t see the fed passing any MAJOR CAFE laws is the big 3. As soon as detroit says, hey we can keep up with Japan, maybe, but until then…………………. Granted, there may be a token increase in standards, but it will be just that, token.

    I’ll get back to you on the subject of how much foreign dependence will be reduced by ANWR. I need to look at that study again indepth. There must be a reason they put it below 50%. Not sure what it is.

    I am excited, by the way about the battery life thing. I am thinking of buying a volt when they come out, but the battery thing had been a negative.

  34. Earl Killian says:

    Stats, once the EPA grants a waiver for California’s AB1493 (probably in January 2009), it is likely that 12-18 states will adopt the same regulations, as allowed by the Clean Air Act. Most joined the lawsuit against the EPA, after all. These states cover as much as half of the US population.

    California’s waiver requests to the EPA essentially create a second stricter set of standards that states can optionally sign onto. Thus what California does can affect a large fraction of the nation. The number of states supporting California’s lawsuit is an indicator, as is past adoption of its waivers.

  35. Earl Killian says:

    Stats, market penetration is a function of time. For vehicle technologies, 2020 is early, 2030 is middle, and 2040 is late. My estimates for PHEV sales are 10%, 80%, and 98%, leading to 2%, 27% and 77% of the fleet in those three years.

    As I explained earlier, negwatts can be much larger than what PHEVs require in any year.

  36. Stats is your friend says:

    Earl,

    I went to http://www.ornl.gov/ info/ ornlreview/ v41_1_08/ article11.shtml, but I saw nothing about what % of vehicles would be ev or hybrid in the study in 2030.

    Earl, just in case you are unaware of this, I am in no way against an all electric fleet. I just don’t see it happening any time soon( I think the price of oil may drop drastically). My personal views were that in the future we would drive electric cars with gas generators for longer trips. The idea of hot swapping battery packs is an alternative to this, but I was worried about the effects of dumping used batteries ( granted I didn’t think they last as long as they do). I figured that we would replace coal with nuclear (I’m sure I will get some fallout over this) and build nuclear plants to deal with excess capacity( which may not be needed). I look forward to learning more about wind and solar, they may be viable alternatives to nuclear. I plan on installing a solar grid on my roof as soon as I can afford it. Unfortunately, I don’t live in an area where I can sell my excess back to the utility company, but that may change soon.

    Regardless, oil is still going to be a part of the equation. If not here then elsewere. If we ain’t using it, we could sell it, so why don’t we? Even by your numbers, market penetration by 2030 would only be 27%. Bottom line, the rest of the fleet would run on oil. If 85% of our vehicles were EV, regardless of whether there would be costs of additional power, foreign oil dependancy still only drops by 50% according to the EIA. My number one goal is energy independance. If opening up ANWR only frees us by 6%, that’s 6% closer. I’m all for it.

  37. Earl Killian says:

    Stats said, “My personal views were that in the future we would drive electric cars with gas generators for longer trips.

    That’s the prescription that Joe Romm has been offering at this site. There are quite a few companies with plans to make products like this available around 2010. We will soon know if this will catch on. I think it will.

    I didn’t send you the ORNL study to justify my PHEV model; you cited the article quoting from it, and expressed frustration that you couldn’t find it on their website, so I provided a pointer. The article is a very terse, high-level summary of some work they did. I presume there is a better write-up somewhere.

    Have you read the PHEV FAQ published at this site?:
    http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/11/plug-in-hybrid-faq/

    The primary attraction of wind and solar is that they can be planned, designed, permitted, and built in 2-5 years instead of 10-19 years for nuclear, and they are much cheaper. They also have the lowest lifecycle CO2 emissions–about one tenth of nuclear and very short energy payback times (measured in months).

    Stats said, “Regardless, oil is still going to be a part of the equation. If not here then elsewere. If we ain’t using it, we could sell it, so why don’t we?

    It is not my intent to debate the wisdom of ANWR drilling, but if I see points I am pretty sure are incorrect, I usually say so. The US trade deficit vs. ANWR is best left to others.

    Stats said, “My number one goal is energy independance. If opening up ANWR only frees us by 6%, that’s 6% closer. I’m all for it.

    But if PHEVs do it better than ANWR drilling (and they do), you should be for PHEVs first and ANWR drilling second, right?

  38. Stats is your friend says:

    Earl,

    Sorry, I’ve been busy. But yes. PHEV’s first, ANWR second. ANWR is temporary. Phev’s (or anything else but oil) are the future.

  39. charles says:

    John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview.

    http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html