Bush sees energy independence as a focus of his remaining tenure

Wall Street Journal ^ | 09-29-2006 | Wall Street Journal

[soccer_maniac]

President Bush said he would speed up his alternative-energy push during the remainder of his term with new spending focused on easing bottlenecks that are slowing the spread of ethanol in the market.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on a swing through Alabama, Mr. Bush said he is seeking ways to overcome difficulties in transporting the fuel, and to increase the number of stations selling it.

[soccer_maniac]

PING!

[My2Cents]

Note to self: Buy ADM stock.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Next to global warming, ethanol is a huge scam.

[ModelBreaker]

This is a complete loser as an energy independence move.

Even if there is a net energy gain from use of ethanol, it's a razor thin margin (that is, it takes almost as much energy to make the ethanol as you get back from burning it). So we get very small gains at very high costs.

Two technologies that could actually make a difference are: nuclear power and coal to oil. But it's going to take big-time political capital and bully-pulpit education to make them happen.

Vaporous nice thoughts about ethanol will do nothing to make us more independent. W is dropping the ball on this one big time.

[rvoitier]

I must've missed the Social Security and Tax reform bills.

Hey Clinton, I'm still waiting on my middle class tax cut.

[ozoneliar]

Lets say there is a net energy gain. If the US can replace all foreign produced energy with domestic energy, then we win. Its that simple.

[Jeff Chandler]

Two technologies that could actually make a difference are: nuclear power and coal to oil.

Add to that oil shale and CELLULOSIC ethanol.

[thomaswest]

"Remaining tenure" is a deliberate slap in the face by the MSM.

GWBush's legacy will last many generations.

[Cobra64]

Next to global warming, ethanol is a huge scam.

Yes it is.

[ModelBreaker]

Lets say there is a net energy gain. If the US can replace all foreign produced energy with domestic energy, then we win. Its that simple.

It's a very small net energy gain with ethanol. So you don't have to replace just imported oil with ethanol. You also have to replace the imported oil it takes to produce the ethanol. It's expensive and inefficient.

Nuclear and Coal to Oil are more likely to produce energy independence. Ethanol is more likely to produce rich farmers, who have a lot of votes. That's what most of the ethanol craze is about, imho.

[ModelBreaker]

Add to that oil shale and CELLULOSIC ethanol.

Maybe oil shale. It isn't clear that extraction can be accomplished with the water reserves available. Some new technologies are being tested but, as far as I know, they are decades from commercial deployment, assuming they are economic.

What little I've read about cellulosic ethanol is similar. Maybe a nice thing a long time from now.

Nukes and Coal to Oil are known technologies with known costs that are practical at today's prices and deployable in a timeframe of years, not decades.

Anyone serious about energy independence would be focusing on these two technologies.

[Stallone]

Some thoughts:

1. Ethanol can be derived in abundance via domestic sources, i.e. independent of the Mecca of terrorists.

2. Americans will not give up their existing cars, nor will they drive anything new that has diminished performance, nor will they change to a fuel source with limited supply or distribution.

3. Ethanol is a fuel that can be used in low percentages in existing cars, and with only slight modification, in high percentages in new cars. In either case, ethanol-friendly engines maintain their compatibility with gasoline, i.e. flexible fuel.

4. Other sources of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind, etc. cannot power such a car directly, but can be used to process ethanol production.

5. We are not gaining a new net energy source with ethanol, but a means of storing and using alterative energy in a form usable in conventional automobiles.

6. Ethanol can help to defund the murderous barbarians, and that is great progress indeed.

[DaveTesla]

"Nuclear and Coal to Oil are more likely to produce energy independence."

Unless we go back to living in caves we will always be
energy dependent.
This is not a bad thing. It is the evolution and
development of man.

The real issue here is who is going to control / try to control
that energy therefore man's development.

I am amazed at how self hating the LEFT is.
The result of their self hatred is to kill man by arresting his development.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Vaporous nice thoughts about ethanol will do nothing to make us more independent. W is dropping the ball on this one big time."

Actually, he is pandering to the flyover states which if I remember correctly vote Republican. The Envirowhackos will not allow coal or nuclear power to be used. Why try?

Bush is going to cherry pick energy issues that help Republicans since Democrats will hold up the process regardless.

If Bush said tomorrow we are going to start producing an alternative fuel that will not harm the environment and will give cars over 100 miles to the gallon, it can also heat homes for next to nothing and power this country without having any impact on the environment, the Democrats will bash it.

[sphinx]

Even if there is a net energy gain from use of ethanol, it's a razor thin margin

I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but iirc, the current energy gain ratio on ethanol is a positive 1.67 to 1. (Disregarding the sun's energy, which is free.) That said, the net energy gain issue is a red herring. The real issue is energy conversion (aka price). From a "net energy gain" perspective, for example, conventional electricity is horribly inefficient. Energy is lost at every step of production and distribution. But we use electricity anyhow because it is wonderfully convenient for many purposes.

By the same token, until we perfect electric battery or hydrogen technologies, we are going to use liquid transportation fuels and pay whatever premium is necessary to produce them. Unless you are willing to convert your car to a coal fired steam engine, which is perfectly feasible but not very convenient.

[Wonder Warthog]

"It's a very small net energy gain with ethanol. So you don't have to replace just imported oil with ethanol. You also have to replace the imported oil it takes to produce the ethanol. It's expensive and inefficient."

Wrong on all counts.

http://www.sdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=16080

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf#search=%22ethanol%20conversion%20efficiency%20%20Argonne%22

[q_an_a]

Vinod Khosla, big venture guy @ KP said, "When President Bush mentioned this in his state of the Union address the amount of money going into venture funds for research increased 100 fold." He mentions several other things including how Brazil has ended ALL IMPORTED OIL!!

Why do conservatives here not want to stick it to the ARABS and Chavez by using biofuels? You can't put nuclear into a car. Coal oil will take as long to develop as biofuel, so why not grow some corn fence post to fence post? It only took Brazil four years to end imports - why not end it in the US by the end of the Bush administration?

here is a link to a video by Khosla - in the first 12 minutes he will tell all conservatives why this is a money maker and good for American business and farmers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913

[thackney]

1. Ethanol can be derived in abundance via domestic sources, i.e. independent of the Mecca of terrorists.

So can Petroleum products. We just need to elect some who don't cave in to environmentalists.

[Ben Ficklin]

While it might be advantagious for the US to be less dependent on oil imports, energy independence is neither feasible nor desirable. Interdependence is the policy for the US. Worldwide interdependence and North American interdependence. Changing the title of the WSJ article doesn't change the facts.

To that end, a world wide interpendent market on natural gas is currently being built.