George W, The Conservationist

Our president was blowing bubbles out of his nice person.

Repeat from another topic:

Husband Dan is in the energy business. He builds power plants in Mexico, Texas, Chicago, NJ, Maine (hydro), and Arizona. He decides whether to use natural gas, coal, gasified coal, diesel, gasoline, garbage, jet fuel, or a combination of sources. He knows what he can charge the public for BTUs fro each energy source, the cost and land and supply requirements for power plants using each power source, and the profit margin he must meet to keep share holders happy. Dan plugs in the numbers, which narrows the choices down to, say, three sources. Usually it's natural gas, coal, and jet fuel. He looks at supplies and emissions standards in the area and recommends one of the three.

It's a mistake to think that coal gasification is the answer to our problems. The current technology for gasified coal requires lots of energy input. That requirement reduces the ~8.5% return that will keep the stock holders happy. e.g., gasification is an engineering crock, like black energy. I wish the environmentalists (I am one) would do the math and admit they're wrong to embrace gasification.

If a plant is not profitable enough then the energy companies backs out of deals with the state and no new power plants are built. This leaves states in a lurch 5-10 years in the future.

Yo hoo, folks that live in New England: MA and CT are set up to screw themselves as not enough new power plants are being built to meet projected demands. They'll be in the same situation as CA was a couple of years ago, forced to purchase energy from other states at premium prices. This can bankrupt a state. If you live in CT, MA, or other New England states, you should plan on moving south or west in the next four years. Or invest in solar panels, water and wind generators, heat pumps, home insulation, sweaters. Your family should join the Polar Bear Club.

Dan's current project in Boston requires natural gas. If Boston insists on gasified coal, the company will have no choice but to cut their loses and back out of the deal. They (Dan's company) will lose a ton of money but that beats not being able to make a profit over the decades the plant runs. Maybe they'll sue the state for being foolish enough to reneg on the deal.

The EPA was right to clarify the situation and insist on playing by the set rules. The state just doesn't realize it's shooting itself in the foot. All they can hear is that gasification seems to be more environmentally friendly (it's not.)

***

Then there's Bush's plan to cut gasoline with ethanol. By the way, does anyone know if ethanol will hurt a Prius engine?

I'm a microbiologist. The best source of ethanol, meaning most energy efficient, is sugar. From beets and sugar cane. We do grow sugar beets and cane in this country but not nearly enough to supply us with enough ethanol. If we want to use sugar, we'd have to import it from Brazil or other sugar producing nations. There are sugar tarrifs and limits. Purchasing sugar from abroad is hardly self sufficient.

Drooling corn framers are waiting in the wings. If sugar is not avaiable then corn can be used as a secondary ethanol feedstock. Corn is notorious for fertilizer requirements. Chemical plants make fertilizer. US environmental requirements have driven more and more of our chemical plants overseas. Again, this undermines self sufficiency.

Ethanol production from corn demands lots of energy input. Once you figure in energy consumption during production, ethanol becomes a poor substitute for oil.

Surprise: the recent energy legislation contained a subsidy for corn farming and using corn for ethanol production. You and I get to pay corn farmers to grow and fertilize corn to make ethanol we can put in our gas tanks.

Smells like a stinky pork deal to me.

Why didn't our President talk conservation? Perhaps because the "C" word is not popular on Capital Hill but "subsidy" is.

I guess it'll take market forces (e.g., gasoline at $5+ a gallon) before conservation becomes the norm.

Our (Dan's and mine) budget can easily absorb a gasoline price of $5/gallon. Too bad the poor will take a major hit as gas prices rise beyond their income's ability to cope. They'll have to give up their cars and take inferior jobs withing walking or bus distance.

Hydrogen will never make it to commercial market. There are too many problems associated with the technology and it will never be cost or energy effective. Hydrogen is a red herring.

I'm saying Bush is blowing bubbles out of his nice person. Like all pols, on the energy issue, he's in the pockets of the lobbyists.

It's conservation, stupid. But the American people don't want to hear that.

 

Agreed. Conservation is the first line of action and it wasn't even mentioned in the SotU address. (probably because it gives Cheney the hives.) Dudes - we are wasting gasoline from idling vehicles, etc. at the rate of flow of Niagra Falls! It doesn't always take technology, but it often requires common sense. The first thing we did, long before getting the Prius was - drive less, turn off the engine when idling and use more public transportation. And reducing home energy consumption by insulating, better windows, lighting etc. I totally support. But the technology GW is proposing, especially ethanol, is not only a massive waste of energy (and especially tax payer dollars) it is also creating more of the same contributions to greenhouse gases. This is just more cronyism and paying off of ADM contributions in a feel good wrapper for middle America. However, technology in the direction of PHEVs, lighter (carbon fiber) vehicles and superior battery technology, I fully support, especially in regions that have hydropower. Technology may be a good long-term solution, but there is a hell of a lot we can do right now while waiting for technology to invent a way out. It's up to us as individuals to start making a diiference because who knows when our govt. will get around to doing it.

 

CO2 in during plant growth, CO2 out during the burn. No net carbon increase, unless you are considering the carbon expended during farming/production -- but gallon for gallon I suspect it is less carbon to produce a gallon of ethanol than acquire a gallon of gasoline.

 

That comment in his speech was actually a subtle slam against hybrids, implying the batteries currently used aren't good enough.

Year after year after year I've watched this "leader" only give hybrids a token mention. Finally, we ended up getting the quickly-to-expire tax credit. Then we have nothing, not even a rally cry in support of using less gas in the first place.

Simply just substituting imported oil for our own oil and biofuels doesn't fix the real problem. Consumption is out of control, and he is doing nothing to promote using less.

Arrgh!

 

He mentioned "straw grass" in his speach, never heard of that option before. NPR hadn't either so they spoke with an Alabama expert on enegery crops. Apparently he was the source for that info. He also said the energy output of straw grass is about 4 times the energy input and it requires little fertilizer. Unlike corn it uses the entire plant.

BTW
I thought the bubbles were a nice addition to the speach.

 

We need a Manhatten Project for alternate Energy. Minimum $10 Billion a Year to start. Create high tech forms of energy generation. I.E. - Fusion, Vacumn Energy.

The U.S. could then power the world.

 

We have, here in the land of ethanol.

"Switch Grass" is that stuff that grows naturally along side of highways.

One summer awhile back, that grass was actually harvested to feed to livestock due to a shortage of regular hay. There is enough sugar content within for animals, as well as a source for creating ethanol.

 

Bush threw us a bone by offering $2 Billion to be spread over several years to several different aspects of hydrogen development.

It as a token gesture at best... considering $200 Billion has been spent on the war already with at least that much more to come in the form of payments to permanently disabled soldiers.

We need to invest in our future, rather than wasting so much $$$ on the moment.

 

You speak the truth, John!

 

....and less tax incentives for popping out children, and more towards those who procure solar, or need assistance in doing so.

 

"We need a Manhatten Project for alternate Energy. Minimum $10 Billion a Year to start. Create high tech forms of energy generation. I.E. - Fusion, Vacumn Energy.

The U.S. could then power the world. "

Great idea. Too bad we're blowing an estimated two trillion on this war before we're done, and therefore can't afford it.

What a catastrophe this administration is for America. Our grandchildren will still be paying for his folly.

 

One also has to wonder about the 60K vehicle limit for tax credit on hybrid sales. If he was REALLY interested in cutting oil use (oops, he didn't say that did he, he said oil IMPORTS), there would be a graduated sales and annual ownership tax on gas guzzlers (be they SUVs or 0-60 as fast as physically possible cars), graduated annual increases in MANDATORY fuel economy, not by fleet, but by type of vehicle, and the tax credit would have NO limits by manufacturer.

Things like this:

and the Cadillac XLR-V (only 1000 being built, $100K MSRP, how much development money went into THAT??) tell me that the tax breaks should not be capped just because a company actually had the foresite and social conscience to develop substantially more fuel efficient and clean vehicles while the big 3 had their heads in the "bigger is better, faster is required" sand.
As usual, poor management is putting thousands of people out of work because the plants can only build 1 thing and people aren't buying it. Toyota built the Prius on a regular line and when they were hotter than expected, they just changed the mix in the fab. Imagine where GM. Ford, Chrysler would be now if instead of spending a bazillion dollars on ads convincing the public that they weren't safe in a car, NEEDED an SUV, money lobbying to make sure the CAFE standards weren't raised (because it is IMPOSSIBLE to get better mileage) the money had been spent on research?

 

So? What else is new? Every president since Nixon has railed against our dependence on foreign oil, and none of them, repeat NONE of them did anything signficant except, perhaps Jimmy Carter who tried. They are all owned by corporate oil, so they will say what they know the public needs to hear, but act in the interests of those who pay them.

George Bush is a delusional lair who somehow, against all evidence, believes he is a great leader.

Where are the Churchills and Roosevelts?

 

indeed, we live in a plutocratic society, lobbists own both Houses directly or indirectly and to our chagrin government is for sale and goes to the highest bidder. The entire existance of the bi-partisan discourse long time ago diverted into a charade. We are being completly deceived.

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics...artner=homepage


So let me get this straight - first Bush tries to sound like Gore and Kerry on energy issues (even though energy policy was dictated by the oil companies in closed door hearings), and then his administration is downsizing the very program (ethanol) that he was talking up in the SOTU?

Does anyone believe anything he says anymore? :angry:

 

Well .. yeah. E.g., when he stonewalls, or blusters, or stumbles -- I take him at face value.

 

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation

Edited for quicker reading...
Can you believe it? tell the masses what they want to hear then recant when you know only a few will get the recant?!?


Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.

 

At present, you can't run a Prius on ethanol. I'm thinking that if ethanol proves viable, there will be some sort of conversion possible.

 

This really sounds suspicious because taking the approach of ethanol seems so much more exotic and complicated than doing something like building upon existing hybrid technology. For example promoting plug-in hybrid technology.

GM some years ago did the same tactic by putting a lot of publicity around fuel cell cars. They showed really cool looking cars, so the public would have no interest in mundane technology such as a hybrid. And then without warning GM shelved the fuel cell program.

So the ethanol thing is something that is going to provide a nice distraction for a couple of years and then it will likely get canned. If President Bush was even more adventerous he should have announced a special program to run cars on water.

Imaging cars that will run on water and the waste product is even cleaner spring water. Yea Yeah that's the trick. Cars that run on water and output water. And guess what that cleaner spring water that comes out of the car's exhaust can be recycled back as fuel. Perpetual motion. Yeah Yeah that's the trick!

America. As President you've got my word we will end our dependence on oil by technology that allows us to run cars on plain water. And I'll back up my promise with a modest million dollar R&D budget. One million dollars. That comes out to less than a penny per American. You'll get to drive cars on water and for less than a penny of tax payer's money. Now you can't beat that!

And in closing we must stay the course and continue our war against terror. God bless!

 

Hydrogen (fuel cells) is really great alternative. The only problem is that it is far in the future, but by talking that one up, the other alternatives can be delayed, helping the Bush/Cheney oil agenda. In order to produce enough hydrogen to make it practical on a large scale, we're going to need a lot more nuclear energy power plants that can make electricity cheaply enough (also having the side benefit of reducing CO2 emissions and perhaps slowing global warming) to use for producing hydrogen for fuel. Ethanol is a cool idea, unfortunately, we don't have enough around this area where the crops grown on farms are more valuable than converting them to fuel. That may of course change if oil gets real expensive, but the oil guys in the Bush administration will ride the high oil prices as long as they can. They can always throw some ethanol in with the oil, and charge even more, then.

Meanwhile, things like hybrid cars, that can really reduce oil consumption, are just not interesting to our current administration.

My opinions, yours will vary.

-Roger