February 20, 2006
IT'S ALL ABOUT NO OIL:
Bush: U.S. on Verge of Energy Breakthrough (DEB RIECHMANN, 2/20/06, Associated Press)
Saying the nation is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that would "startle" most Americans, President Bush on Monday outlined his energy proposals to help wean the country off foreign oil.Less than half the crude oil used by refineries is produced in the United States, while 60 percent comes from foreign nations, Bush said during the first stop on a two-day trip to talk about energy.
Some of these foreign suppliers have "unstable" governments that have fundamental differences with America, he said.
"It creates a national security issue and we're held hostage for energy by foreign nations that may not like us," Bush said.
MORE:
President Discusses Advanced Energy Initiative In Milwaukee (George W. Bush, Johnson Controls Building Efficiency Business, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2/20/06)
The fundamental question is, how do we keep doing fine? The challenge that faces us is -- is how we make sure that the economic growth today carries over for tomorrow. And that's what I want to talk about. In order to understand what to do you've got to understand what got us to where we are today. Part of it is keeping taxes low, by the way, and that's exactly what I intend to do so long as I'm the President, is keep taxes low. Part of it is being wise about how we spend our money. Part of it is understanding how technology plays in the future of the country.Think back 25 years ago, in the start of the 1980s. It's not all that long ago, really. Some of us remember the '80s pretty clearly. (Laughter.) A lot of kind of grey-haired folks here that lived through the '80s. (Laughter.) Then most Americans used typewriters, instead of the computers. They used payphones -- you remember what those were -- instead of cell phones. They used carbon paper instead of laser printers, bank tellers instead of ATMs, and they played the license plate game on trips, as opposed to DVDs. (Laughter.) Times have changed a lot in 25 years, because of technology.
We're seeing new develops all the time -- new developments -- advanced battery technology allows cell phones to last about 50 percent longer than they did just five years ago. In your laboratory we're seeing -- firsthand seeing the progress being made because of your scientists and engineers in lighter, more potent battery technology. Lightweight parts and better engines allow cars to travel 60 percent farther on a gallon of gas than they did three decades ago.
Technologies are helping this economy become more efficient. Listen to this: Over the last 30 years our economy has grown three times faster than our energy consumption. The economy has grown three times faster than energy consumption. During that period of time, we created 56 million jobs, while cutting air pollution by 50 percent. Technology is really important for the future of this country. And so in the State of the Union, I said that by using technology, we can help make sure this country remains a world leader. And that starts with making sure we change our energy habits.
I know it came as a shock to some to hear a Texan stand up there in front of the country and say, we've got a real problem, America is addicted to oil. But I meant it, because it's a true fact, and we've got to do something about it now. Oil is the primary source of gasoline; it is the primary source of diesel; it is the primary source of jet fuel. And that means that oil accounts for virtually all energy consumption in the vital transportation sector of our economy.
The oil we consume in this important sector comes from foreign countries, most of it does. In 1985, three-quarters of the crude oil used in U.S. refineries came from America; today that equation has changed dramatically. Less than half the crude oil used in our refineries is produced here at home, 60 percent comes from foreign countries. Things have changed since 1985.
Some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments, or fundamental differences with the United States. These countries know we need their oil and that reduces influence. It creates a national security issue when we're held hostage for energy by foreign nations that may not like us.
Energy is also part of our economic security, as well. That's obvious. I mean, the global demand for oil has been rising faster than supply because there's new economies that are beginning to gin up, new economies growing, like China and India. Oil prices rise sharply when demand is greater than supply. And when they do, it strains your budgets. It hurts our families, it hurts our small entrepreneurs. It's like a hidden tax. And so we're vulnerable to high prices of oil, and we're vulnerable to sudden disruptions of oil. What I'm telling you is oil -- the dependence upon oil is a national security problem, and an economic security problem. And here's what we intend to do about it.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 20, 2006 10:00 PM
"the nation is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that would "startle" most Americans"
They're going to release some more back-engineered UFO technology.
Posted by: Carter at February 20, 2006 10:36 PMYou do know what a liar he is, don't you?
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 20, 2006 11:15 PMOnly about big stuff, not details, like energy sources.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 11:19 PMLOL.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 20, 2006 11:29 PMJoe: You're only going to encourage him.
Posted by: David Cohen at February 21, 2006 1:06 AMSometime in future:
Bush (pick one, Jeb, or Jeb's son, anyone) to nation: we no longer need oil.
Bush to Mideast: buh-bye. Enjoy all that sand, and er, sand.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at February 21, 2006 1:58 AMAmazingly enough the president thinks that greater oil independence can be achieved without higher gas taxes or more rail infrastructure.
Posted by: Daran at February 21, 2006 3:28 AMYou can probably do it without rail, though that's a mistake for social reasons. Gas taxes are required to force innovation and transition.
Posted by: oj at February 21, 2006 7:16 AMAs David Cohen (IIRC) pointed out the other day, switchgrass will make at least 1,000 gallons of ehanol per acre, per year, and it can be grown on land marginally or completely unsuited to other forms of agriculture. In experimental studies, carefully tended switchgrass acre plots have yielded up to 1,500 gallons per year, with 1,150 gallons of ethanol per acre per year being the norm.
Most ethanol now in use is made from corn, and the total energy output/input ratio is about 1.2, meaning that the net energy gain from corn ethanol is about 21 percent. The energy output/input ratio for switchgrass is estimated at 4.4, representing a net energy gain of 334 percent.
The ratio is better with switchgrass because it doesn't require the nurturing of row crops, and it is perennial, eliminating the need for annual planting. When the energy required to make tractors, transport farm equipment, plant and harvest, and so on is factored in, the net energy output of switchgrass is about 20 times better than corn's.
Switchgrass also does a far better job of protecting soil, virtually eliminating erosion. And it removes considerably more CO2 from the air, packing it away in soils and roots. Switch grass roots extend very deep into the soil, and aren't removed when the plant is harvested, so the CO2 used to grow those roots is permanently removed from the atmosphere.
Switchgrass also offers excellent habitat for a wide variety of birds and small mammals, as it's very brushy.
At the turn of the last century, America's transportation system was fueled by biomass: 30 million horses and mules, give or take a few million, pulled buggies, hauled wagons, dragged plows, and so on.
According to Ken Vogel, a U.S. Department of Agriculture forage geneticist helping to develop and test switchgrass for use as an ethanol feedstock, replacing animal power with machine power freed up 80 million acres of U.S. land that had been used to grow grass and other feed for these millions of animals.
While many of those acres have suburbs on them today, if we were to place 20 million acres of currently fallow land under cultivation for switchgrass, and were able to produce 20 billion gallons of ethanol per year from that land, we could replace the gasoline produced by roughly 650 million barrels of oil*, which is approximately one week's worth of global demand for oil, or five weeks' worth of demand by American motorists.**
While we would get cleaner air, fewer deaths due to air pollution, more wildlife, the satisfaction of reducing the U.S. trade deficit by $ 40 billion a year, and more American jobs, what we would not get is cheaper fuel.
Still, I'm willing to pay an extra 50¢ a gallon for mass produced switchgrass E85, if it means no more American blood for oil.
(Yes, I'm aware that '90 - '91 and '03 - present are not directly for oil, but they're clearly about oil. In a post-Soviet world, why would anyone but scholars care about the Middle East, sans oil) ?
* Refineries in the U.S. can only produce about 20 gallons of gasoline from every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil that is refined. The rest of the barrel gets turned into other petroleum products like diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, and propane.
Ethanol only contains about 2/3 the energy per gallon that gasoline does, so 50% more ethanol must be produced to replace any given amount of gasoline consumption.
** Americans currently use about 375 million gallons of gasoline every day.
If and when technology renders demand for oil obsolete, the Israelis, as in the old joke about the rattlesnake bite, find out who their real friends are.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 21, 2006 7:43 AMIt's good to know the President can differentiate between "true facts" and the other kind.
Soon, he'll be looking for "capital formators" to provide capital for research. (around 10/11/2001 - Bushism)
I love the guy when he does this stuff. If only we could witness the bursting blood vessels in liberal heads.
Posted by: Bruno at February 21, 2006 10:42 AMNoam: Cracking petroleum results in a more or less set ratio of by-products. For example, for every three barrels of crude oil, we get about 2 barrels of gasoline and 1 barrel of home heating oil. So, to look at it from reverse, to get 1 barrel of home heating oil, we need 3 barrels of crude oil and we're also going to end up with 2 barrels of something more or less like gasoline. The same thing goes for plastic or fertilizer precursers cracked from petroleum -- to get the same amount we get now will require that we start with the same amount of crude oil we use now.
Posted by: David Cohen at February 21, 2006 12:40 PMMr. Cohen;
I don't believe that the ratio is that fixed. Note that you are talking about cracking, not distillation. The only purpose of cracking is to change the ratio of output products from crude oil by breaking hydrocarbon chains in to shorter chains. The problem, of course, is that cracking can only shorten chains, so it's not clear how low a ratio of gasoline can be achieved, but it's certainly significantly lower than is done now.
P.S. Has anyone thought about the decrentralization aspects of such a shift?
Lou's got it again.
When we no longer DEPEND on Middleast oil because other options are available, affairs there are no longer of strategic interest to the USA. We will no longer find our presence there neccesary to protect the oil lanes. Just imagine what the savings will be to our national treasure. Money that we're spending now to subsidize our oil fix. We can even extend GWB's tax cuts and then some. Our strategic interests in the M.E. will be clarified.
Posted by: Genecis at February 21, 2006 1:51 PMAOG: I believe it's somewhat variable but not to such a degree as to invalidate David's basic point, or at least not economically. My dad made part of his living developing cracking catalysts back in the 60s and IIRC their two big things were thermal efficiency and being able to vary the fraction. A percentage point or so on either were worth bazillions. I still have some of his patent awards, which the team typically sold to the company for a dollar per man.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 21, 2006 3:48 PMWell this is all shaking out. Getting to know who's who.
Posted by: Genecis at February 21, 2006 5:33 PMCrude oil consists of carbon chains of varying lengths, plus small amounts of various other elements, of which sulphur is the most problematic.
Gasoline is refined from fairly short carbon chains. The amount of gasoline naturally found in crude oil varies from 10 to 30 percent, which was too low to meet demand even at the turn of the 20th century.
Therefore, humans like joe shropshire's father put their collective genius to work transforming dross into gold, and came up with several methods to "crack" longer carbon chains into shorter ones, which we refine into gasoline.
Heat and catalysts are used to convert heavier oils to lighter products using three “cracking” methods: fluid catalytic cracking (FCC), hydrocracking (Isomax), and coking (or thermal-cracking).
We can also "reform" lighter carbon chains into longer ones, using catalysts.
Sometimes I just gotta say "Holy Hannah, we are SO SMART !!!"
Not necessarily wise, since we might have been better off going with biodiesel or ethanol, both of which were used extensively in early self-propelled vehicles, but we are surely clever.
In any case, demand for gasoline would have to drop by over 75% before we started having a problem with surplus waste gasoline due to refining crude oil to primarily produce other products.
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at February 21, 2006 5:49 PMNo, Genecis, I still have the paperwork, as mementoes. The dollar probably went to buy us popcorn. BTW my dad's very favorite thing were those 200 mile-per-gallon carburetor advertisements you'd see from time to time in the back of Popular Mechanics. "Dr Bunsen Honeydew has invented a carburetor that gets 200 miles per gallon, but the eeeevil car companies and the won't put it on their cars because the eeeevil oil companies won't let them. But for only $2.95..." He would just laugh his head off at those.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 21, 2006 5:59 PMMy eyes are glazing over. When you all decide what we should about fuel, pls. let me know.
Posted by: erp at February 22, 2006 4:58 PMJust raise the price of gas and the market will take care of the rest.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 5:02 PM