Regaining energy leverage

Washington Times ^ | January 30, 2006 | Michael O'Hanlon, David Sandalow

[JamesP81]

I don't mean to be rude, but this idea that we shouldn't drill ANWR is totally ridiculous. Alternative energy sources aren't going to come tomorrow morning, but a war with Iran d@mned well might. When the democraps nixed ANWR drilling they handed the Iranians, gift wrapped, a bigger club to hit is in the head with. When things go south with Iran, and the probably will, if we had drilled ANWR we'd likely see $4/gallon gas. Since we haven't drilled it, expect more on the lines of $7.50/gallon.

It's simple: in the long-term, produce ethanol and biodiesel for cars, nuclear for electricity (forget solar, wind, hydroelectric. They're nice to have, but not workable as a replacement for nuclear or coal. Get used to this). In the short-term, drill ANWR, blow up terrorists, get rid of the iranian president and his psychotic pals.

[cogitator]

In the short-term, drill ANWR, blow up terrorists, get rid of the iranian president and his psychotic pals.

Based on everything I've read, ANWR does not come under the heading of "short-term solution". Even if the permits were printed tomorrow, there's still the problem of finding oil, creating infrastructure, creating transport, and bringing the fields on-line. When the issue was hot, the first projection for any oil from ANWR was 5-6 years out, with full production not enabled in at least a decade.

And there's still a question of how much is actually there. Based on the current projections of import needs over the next two decades (which could change if alternatives take hold), maximum ANWR output would only lower the imports by 6%, minimum output by 3%, in 2025. Here's a graph from DOE:

There's a lot that could be done now and in the next couple of years that could have a substantially bigger impact than ANWR oil.

The article says that Ford and GM sell flex-fuel cars in Brazil now -- they could be selling them here in six months. And that's just a start.

[Wiseghy]

That is a really interesting idea. The big three would probably deeply resist this however, as further hampering their "competitiveness."

American Mfgrs seem to suffer from the more entrenched issues of reliability and weak technology. Perhaps if they received tax incentives to upgrade their tech and reliability, but of course gov. micro management seldom really works.

[cogitator]

In the short-term, drill ANWR, blow up terrorists, get rid of the iranian president and his psychotic pals.

Based on everything I've read, ANWR does not come under the heading of "short-term solution". Even if the permits were printed tomorrow, there's still the problem of finding oil, creating infrastructure, creating transport, and bringing the fields on-line. When the issue was hot, the first projection for any oil from ANWR was 5-6 years out, with full production not enabled in at least a decade.

And there's still a question of how much is actually there. Based on the current projections of import needs over the next two decades (which could change if alternatives take hold), maximum ANWR output would only lower the imports by 6%, minimum output by 3%, in 2025. Here's a graph from DOE:

There's a lot that could be done now and in the next couple of years that could have a substantially bigger impact than ANWR oil.

The article says that Ford and GM sell flex-fuel cars in Brazil now -- they could be selling them here in six months. And that's just a start.

[jdsteel]

Excellent and accurate post. But we still do need a few new refineries, ANWR and 10 new nuclear power plants.

[pepperdog]

Me too, my mind is boggled!

[NYorkerInHouston]

Shale has all the problems of the tar sands plus the additional one of there being no commercially successful technique to extract it at this time.

The basic problem with the tar sands is scaling it up. Right now 1 million barrels a day of oil are produced from the tar sands. By 2015, that number should be 3 million barrels a day and by 2030, 5 million barrels a day.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/12072005hearing1733/Smith.pdf

That sounds good until one notes that the world uses 84 million barrels a day and this country 20 million barrels a day. Our government predicts world oil consumption to rise to 120 million barrels a day by 2020. The tar sands can extracted at a steady rate but it is difficult to scale up production.

Shale oil (actually pre-oil technically) will have similar problems with ramping up production. In addition, there is no commercially successful operation in place now, nor has there ever been one in the United States. We can't just produce 10 million barrels from shale tommorrow or next year or in 2010. We'll be lucky if we're producing 1 million barrels a day by 2020.

It's not to say that we shouldn't go after the stuff but I think realistically that the tar sands and perhaps shale will be better at producing "relatively" small amounts over a long period of time, than large amounts over a short period of time.

[JamesP81]

I guess it's a matter of semantics. I consider 5-6 years short term, at least compared to 20 years.

The article says that Ford and GM sell flex-fuel cars in Brazil now -- they could be selling them here in six months. And that's just a start.

You wouldn't believe how many times I advocated this on an FR thread and got called an idiot for it. I was not aware that such cars were already in production, but I knew that even gasoline powered cars could be modified by making minor modifications to the fuel pump and popping a new fuel injection chip into the computer. Since they started putting 10% ethanol in gasoline, cars have fuel lines and seals that withstand ethanol. It's a fairly simple modification to make.

[cogitator]

The big three would probably deeply resist this however, as further hampering their "competitiveness."

Business-as-usual won't cut it when they're losing money at the rate they are. If they're going to get a bailout, it should have strings attached that they can't evade.

It seems to me that the auto shows had a three-person concept commuter car. Googling...

Yep, it was the Ford Reflex. Shooting for 65 mpg with an advanced diesel-electric hybrid engine. Only has room for one rear-seat passenger. It might even attract chicks...

[cogitator]

You wouldn't believe how many times I advocated this on an FR thread and got called an idiot for it. I was not aware that such cars were already in production, but I knew that even gasoline powered cars could be modified by making minor modifications to the fuel pump and popping a new fuel injection chip into the computer. Since they started putting 10% ethanol in gasoline, cars have fuel lines and seals that withstand ethanol. It's a fairly simple modification to make.

You're not an idiot in my book. Rock-and-roll!

How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!

"You probably don't know it, but the answer to America's gasoline addiction could be under the hood of your car. More than five million Tauruses, Explorers, Stratuses, Suburbans, and other vehicles are already equipped with engines that can run on an energy source that costs less than gasoline, produces almost none of the emissions that cause global warming, and comes from the Midwest, not the Middle East."

...

"Instead of coming exclusively from corn or sugar cane as it has up to now, thanks to biotech breakthroughs, the fuel can be made out of everything from prairie switchgrass and wood chips to corn husks and other agricultural waste. This biomass-derived fuel is known as cellulosic ethanol. Whatever the source, burning ethanol instead of gasoline reduces carbon emissions by more than 80% while eliminating entirely the release of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide. Even the cautious Department of Energy predicts that ethanol could put a 30% dent in America's gasoline consumption by 2030."

...

"Although Brazilians have driven some cars that run exclusively on ethanol since 1979, the introduction three years ago of new engines that let drivers switch between ethanol and gasoline has transformed what was once an economic niche into the planet's leading example of renewable fuels. Ford exhibited the first prototype of what came to be known as a flex-fuel engine in 2002; soon VW marketed a flex-fuel car. Ford's Engle says flex-fuel technology helps avoid problems that had plagued ethanol cars, such as balky starts on cold mornings, weak pickup, and corrosion."

...

"With Brazilian ethanol selling for 45% less per liter than gasoline in 2003 and 2004, flex-fuel cars caught on like iPods. In 2003, flex-fuel had 6% of the market for Brazilian-made cars, and automakers were expecting the technology's share to zoom to 30% in 2005. That proved wildly conservative: As of last December, 73% of cars sold in Brazil came with flex-fuel engines. There are now 1.3 million flex-fuel cars on the road. "I have never seen an automotive technology with that fast an adoption rate," says Engle."

...

"The key to Brazil's success is that consumers are choosing ethanol rather than being forced to buy it. Brazil's military dictators tried the latter approach in the 1970s and early 1980s, by offering tax breaks to build mills, ordering state-owned oil company Petrobras to sell ethanol at gas stations, and regulating prices at the pump. This bullying--and cheap oil in the 1990s--nearly killed the market for ethanol until flex-fuel came along. The regime wasn't good for much, says consultant Plinio Nastari, but it did create the distribution system that enables drivers to fill up on ethanol just about anywhere."

...

"he recently enacted energy bill takes steps in the right direction, like mandating the use of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year by 2013, but much more can be done. Easing the tariff of 54 cents per gallon on imports of ethanol from Brazil and other countries would certainly help. Because sugar cane generates far more ethanol per acre than corn, Brazil can produce ethanol more cheaply than the U.S. Not only would importing more of it broaden access to ethanol for U.S. buyers, but it would also make it cheaper for the ultimate consumers--us. That in turn would spur demand at the pump and encourage service station owners to offer ethanol more widely. What's also needed is for someone big--like Shell or BP, which tout themselves as green companies--to commit to cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale."

(And just think how much ethanol we could produce if we signed up Jack Daniels!)

[cogitator]

This broke, for some reason:

Also, some enviros are cautiously favorable toward Bush's call:

Bush plan to break U.S. 'addiction' to oil draws skepticism (read the whole thing)

Quoting: "Even so, activists such as Steven Sawyer, a spokesman for Greenpeace International, wished him well - and offered hope that the Congress would back his vision with funding. "The first step in dealing with an addiction is recognizing the problem, so you could call this the first step in a 12-step program to end oil-aholism," Sawyer said. "Good luck to him. It's something that desperately needs to be done."

and

""I heard the speech and I thought it was pretty radical to hear the president of the United States finally saying U.S. is addicted to oil," said Amanda Roll-Pickering, from the Center for Alternative Technology in Wales. "I've heard American environmentalists say it, but never the president, so it is a pretty big milestone."

[Publius6961]

There's a lot that could be done now and in the next couple of years that could have a substantially bigger impact than ANWR oil.

I hear that all the time, but experience teaches me that this is a throw away line with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Like the nut case at work who was planning to run for president and "defeat Bush".

He's on permanent (mental) disability leave now.

[RightWhale]

The new word is cellulosic. It's only a day old and already loaded.

[cogitator]

I hear that all the time, but experience teaches me that this is a throw away line with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Memory fades fast, but I think I mentioned that energy conservation can be considered a patriotic duty and the President could call for us to do our part. (I know I said this in a thread yesterday or today.) If a substantial sector of our populace started replacing incandescent lights with compact fluorescents, insulating homes (even with just thermal film on windows), and forming grocery-pools, we could start saving energy. And those are just a couple of ideas to start with. Changing the fundamental energy structure of the economy will take longer, but it has to begin somewhere.

[frgoff]

Yeah. It was very dissapointing, but throws a bone to the farm lobby, I suppose.

Domestic drilling is the answer. In my utopian vision, we'd all be using RTGs running off Plutonium 238 (can't make a bomb out of it, less toxic than caffeine, electrical power for 40 years) in our automobiles, but that ain't gonna happen. The next best bet is using hydrogren or some other chemical storage system driven by nuclear power.

[humint]

If only the market decides, there could be a rather painful gap between the period when fossil fuel energy sources get very expensive and less-expensive alternatives become widely available. And fossil fuel energy sources are under constant threaten to become very expensive with little warning (remember Hurricane Katrina and those Islamic nuts running Iran)?

While the price of petroleum is high industry should take it upon itself to finance big R&D ideas. Conservation and localized renewable are little ideas that always get swallowed up when energy prices stabilize. If we're going to kick the petro-habit without severe withdrawal symptoms the energy industry should be looking at efficiency enhancing accessories and alternative feedstocks to refineries and power plants. Alternatively, money should be poured into rehabilitating industrial wastes into energy or industrial feedstocks. Consumption isn't the problem, developmental and disposal processes of consumables are.

[ihatemyalarmclock]

I basically agree with raising the gas tax and cutting other taxes to compensate. I wouldn't support immediately raising it by $1/gallon, but something like 10 cents each year for the next 10 years would be workable. Taxes of some form are a necessary evil, and gas taxes have the virtue of correcting negative externalities.

TD, it appears you're OK with the concept, but only to a certain point.

That's fine, but it immediately triggers the old, tired "slippery slope" argument.

To wit: a dollar is too much right now, but how about 50 cents this year, 75 cents next year, then a dollar and then a dollar 25?

My point is actually this: a tax, at any level, by definition goes to the government.

To support your position, I'd have to believe that the government could do more and better problem-solving if only it had more of your money and mine.

That might actually be the Republican take (in the current administration) but it doesn't strike me as conservative.

It DOES strike me as the kind of incremtalism that, in recent years, has enjoined free citizens from everything from medium-rare hamburgers and eggs over easy, to restrictions on who may own a firearm for protection and where in the great outdoors one might light a cigarette.

None of these things happened all at once, but slowly over years.

How much harm are you willing to do to the American economy to solve a problem that the free market will solve without you?

When pumped oil exceeds a certain price, shale, bio, nuclear and hydrogen will move in to fill any void.

In the meantime, the government enjoys quite enough of my earnings.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

ANWR would help in the medium term until alternate energy sources are developed. Even if we did a crash program to move away from petroleum, we are going to have a huge demand from petroleum products for decades.
We can do more than ANWR (ANWR is a small piece of the puzzle). Producing hybrid and fuel-flex cars will cut down on consumption. Also, more diesel cars would help.

I own an automobile that gets 30mpg on the hwy and would love to see fewer huge SUVs and Pickups on the road. Many people want a big vehicle for their egos.

[Publius6961]

My 5-bedroom house has been totally fluorescent for years, both inside and out, and it is insulated beyond the most recent code requirements for our climate. My commute car gets 48 mpg, on average.

What makes you think many of us have not already done all those things?

The problem I have is with pie in the sky energy source throwaway statements.

All the suggestions would make someone rich beyond the dreams of avarice, and make hydrocarbon fuels a nightmare of the past, if only they were realistic.

Nuclear is a good example.

Yet nothing ever actually happens.

[cogitator]

What makes you think many of us have not already done all those things?

I commend you. Large sectors of the American populace still live in older, poorly insulated homes and use energy-profligate appliances. And we know about the popularity of SUVs, but that's changing. I drive a minivan, but it's frequently a multi-passenger vehicle, so I get good per-capita MPG.

I think there are tax credits available for energy conservation in certain ways. Expansion of a program like that would be a good incentive.