The State of the (Energy) Union (and a SOTU open thread)

UPDATE by Prof. Goose
Tonight President Bush will ask Congress to join him in pursuing the goal of reducing US gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years (and petroleum consumption by 10% by 2017--thanks Chris V.). Here is a .pdf (125Kb) of the press release and "the plan."

We don't yet know what President Bush will say specifically in the SOTU speech about environmental issues, climate change or our nation's addiction to oil. However, by tomorrow he may be playing catch up to an array of local, state and private sector efforts to reduce green house gas emissions. Here in New York City and around the country local municipalities are making real commitments to reducing carbon emissions. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is trying to reduce the carbon emissions from tailpipes with an ambitious approach to capping carbon emissions and reducing them to 1990 levels by 2020.

And now a group of large corporations looking to reduce their exposure to all these new and varied state and city level legislation have banded together to call for a national limit to carbon emissions set at the Federal level.

Many energy producers and manufacturers have expressed concern that various state efforts, if not coordinated, could lead to a scattershot system of regulation. Others worry that harsher measures, like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, the biggest contributor to global-warming gases, could be imposed if they do not reach a consensus on a legislative approach.

The group’s formal announcement is scheduled for Monday, the day before President Bush is to deliver his State of the Union address and offer the administration’s newest basket of proposals to promote energy security and combat global warming.

While they didn't figure out a model piece of legislation that they could all agree on, they did agree to some basic principles to encourage more market based carbon credit system.

The group’s principles include recommending a range of emissions levels — from 100 to 105 percent of current levels within five years, then down to 90 to 100 percent of current levels in 10 years, and 70 to 90 percent of current levels in 15 years. In addition, the chief executives agreed after some discussion, to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide.

This would basically eliminate the idea of new coal plants without significant carbon sequestration technology in place.

Politically industry seems to sense a moment of opportunity following the Democrats rise to power in Congress and President Bush's last two years in office to solidify the regulatory framework they will operate within for the next generation.

Timing also played a role in the executives’ thinking. As Mr. Darbee said, “We have the opportunity to construct something more pragmatic and realistic while President Bush is in office.” A future political climate, after 2008, he said, might produce “solutions less sensitive to the needs of business.”

Hear that Hillary and Barack? McCain? Governor Richardson (an energy dude himself...)?

This could be President Bush's last chance to create a long lasting legacy on the environment. And the Democrats look like they are open to dealing on the carbon emissions to produce tangible progress on a major issue for their base. Will Bush deal? We shall see on Tuesday night.

UPDATE by Prof. Goose

Democrats Expect Bush Push on Ethanol by Bret Schulte

Word that President Bush will call for a massive increase in ethanol production as key to his strategy for energy security and the fight against global warming has Capitol Hill and industry lobbyists buzzing. Bush's goal, according to sources, will be 60 billion gallons of ethanol blended with U.S. gasoline and pumped into cars by 2030.

Dave Roberts provides his insightful and best guesses on the SOTU tonight here

In the end, it will be sound and fury signifying nothing. Promises of "energy independence" are nothing new, and they come to nothing. Thus shall it be with climate change. All the real action is happening at the state and local level, and it will be so until 2009. But Bush's increasingly desperate song and dance is always fun to hum along to.

and the Denver Post weighs in:

In his first State of the Union address to a Democratic-controlled Congress, President Bush will urge that gasoline consumption be slashed by 20 percent, the White House said, and press lawmakers not to resist his Iraq war buildup.

Remember when Bush ran in 2000, and said he was more of an environmentalist than Al Gore, because he would 'regulate the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere'?

Of course when he got to power, that became reducing the amount of CO2 per unit of GDP (that falls by about 1.5% pa in any case).

My continual sense with Bush is that whilst he changes his rhetoric to suit what the focus groups tell him, his political agenda remains unchanged.

The Baker Commission calls for a pull back in Iraq, and dealings with Iran and Syria. Bush toughens his rhetoric, and pours more troops in.

In his Energy Bill he called for more R&D to solve the energy problem, and then subsequent budgets have actually cut R&D below what was planned. For example the DOE's efficient vehicle programme has been cut back.

Where there are programmes which are ostensibly towards dealing with emissions, they are structured in a way so as to have payoff so far in the future that they are not likely to be valuable. That's why the 'FutureGen' project is known in the industry as 'NeverGen'.

Similarly the focus on hydrogen, a transport fuel which no reasonable analyst expects to have any significance before 2025 or later.

Call it pro fossil fuel, call it anti international institutions, call it pro highly paid taxpayers. Call it what you will, each policy measure has always looped back towards supporting the interests that have funded his political career (oil, pharmaceuticals etc.).

In that sense he is ideologically utterly consistent: perhaps a virtue, but not one that will lead to real policy change. He is, as he says, a man who knows his own mind, a decider.

So I expect rhetorical hot air, but not real change.

The group’s principles include recommending a range of emissions levels — from 100 to 105 percent of current levels within five years, then down to 90 to 100 percent of current levels in 10 years, and 70 to 90 percent of current levels in 15 years. In addition, the chief executives agreed after some discussion, to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide.

This would basically eliminate the idea of new coal plants without significant carbon sequestration technology in place

Or rather, require all new coal plants to have the provision to put carbon capture technology in place when that is available .

Since we don't know which coal capture technology will prove dominant (1), this could boil down to leaving an empty space next to the plant, designated for future carbon capture.

(1) leading candidates include:

IGCC - coal gasification
amine scrub of the exhaust flu
oxy-hydrogen combustion

My own guess is IGCC is the technological best lead. By concentrating the CO2 (a nearly pure stream from the gasification stage) you are making the capture so easy for yourself.

However the utility industry deeply distrusts IGCC due to reliability issues (new technology). This is a very conservative industry, with a low rate of R&D (1% of sales, v. 8% in the pharmaceutical industry).

Other than supercritical steam, there hasn't been a major innovation in coal fired technology since the 1960s that I know of (except aforesaid IGCC ie gasification, which is more of a chemical industry technology than a power utility one).

CO2 sequestration is an imaginary technology.

Even if you capture the CO2 effectively, there is currently no known reliable way of storing it for geophysical time, which is the requirement.

Not only that, any potential solution would depend intimately on local geology which may not
be compatible where the coal plants otherwise need to be.

Unfortunately, I see this as a total loser.

The mentions of 'sequestration' are a greenwashing of black coal, sort of like the "hydrogen car of the future" is a distraction to preclude having to increase efficiency standards now.

Let's compare this to a nuclear fission. If you write a cheque you will get a working plant with technology well-evolved through many decades, and you know that its operation will result in almost no greenhouse emissions versus coal.

The waste instead of being gaseous is small in volume and compact solid, and easily monitored.

And in future actinide-burning reactors that waste may be fuel of its own and be transmuted to a much lower half-life.

Even if you capture the CO2 effectively, there is currently no known reliable way of storing it for geophysical time, which is the requirement.

Mineral carbonation works forever.

I doubt fossil + CO2 capture will be price competitive with nuclear power though.

If it comes out slowly over a few thousand years it will be enough. Once we finsh burning the carbon in the coal and oil, makind's CO2 emmision will plumet.

1. you can certainly ship CO2 by pipeline over hundreds of miles it is already done. And you can move it by tanker.

2. you can certainly put CO2 back underground -- Weyburn in Saskatoon does so, as does Sleipnir in Norway (under the North Sea)

3. 'geologic' sequestration really means post 2200. After 2200, we don't have any more fossil fuels to burn (in significant quantities)-- just some biomass

4. building power plants at the mouths of coal plants, and moving the power very long distances is something we already do. Happens all the time in the UK. And we don't even us DC transmission to do it, which we could do.

So the questions of where to generate the power are not insuperable.

5. a bigger problem is safety, and more specifically, local concerns about safety. That disaster in Cameroon looms large.

Oddly, 5 is exactly the issue of the nuclear industry (fear of long term geologic waste).

My problem with nuclear is that, as a technology, it has never met its cost forecasts. Not by a country mile: 300-400% more expensive than forecast. Nor is its safety record entirely clean. It is a complex technology, and all the moving parts have to work, potentially for centuries, to keep it safe.

A lot of people have looked at CSS in great detail. There is real potential there, and the costs are not out of line with electricity provided by wind or nuclear (roughly a range of 5-10 cents/ kwhr for all of these technologies). And since coal is the cheapest energy we have, we are going to keep using coal.

There's no way, for example, that China could replace all its electricity demand with nuclear. So the challenge is to clean up the fuel it is using, coal.

Actually only IGCC is currently a serious candidate for carbon capture. Conventional CPPs emit a mixture of 18-19% CO2 and 75% N2 plus other stuff. To separate CO2 from this you need to liquify it - which will bring the costs to the sky and is even likely to be an energy loser.

If you are suggesting is to ban conventional CPPs and permit only IGCCs at sites suitable for carbon capture I would support you. But the fact it that you may as well ban the whole coal industry... it is pretty much the same.

Hello LevinK,

If you are suggesting is to ban conventional CPPs and permit only IGCCs at sites suitable for carbon capture I would support you. But the fact it that you may as well ban the whole coal industry... it is pretty much the same.

Now here is an excellent idea which I can affirm. We should ban the entire coal industry from the horrendous mines to the horrendous power plants to all of the horrendous electronic gadgets which are powered by the electricity generated by this dirty, world-polluting, world-destroying substance.

Americans should learn to live with less electricity. This will serve to break one of America's addictions as we retreat from the hellish planet that technology is creating through its pollution of the Earth.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Let's entertain this a bit.

What will happen if we just stopped burning coal and (obviously) nuclear starting from tommorow? I have lived during a permanent 3 to 1 rationing... not that bad, just quite inconvenient. But what about 1 to 3 or 1 to 11 (as they do in Baghdad and Tirana)? Forget cooling in the summers, how will people heat in the winters, since NG will be also gone? Tell you what - I think they will start burning wood... 300 mln.north americans by several cubic meters of wood = US deforestation in a decade or so. Is this what you want?

I told you once - our civilisation is just like a 1 mln.barrel tanker headed for an iceberg - and if your idea is to sink it then you need to know that all that cr*p is still going to get in the water. So, please stop wasting bandwidth with such suggestions and try to help those, trying to find a way to change the course - this is the only chance not only for humans but for the Mother Nature you are so much concerned of.

What will happen if we just stopped burning coal and (obviously) nuclear starting from tommorow? I have lived during a permanent 3 to 1 rationing... not that bad, just quite inconvenient. But what about 1 to 3 or 1 to 11 (as they do in Baghdad and Tirana)? Forget cooling in the summers, how will people heat in the winters, since NG will be also gone? Tell you what - I think they will start burning wood... 300 mln.north americans by several cubic meters of wood = US deforestation in a decade or so. Is this what you want?

If the 300 million Americans cut down the forests they will murder their own children. If Americans were wise they would end the coal industry and then adapt to their environment.

I told you once - our civilisation is just like a 1 mln.barrel tanker headed for an iceberg - and if your idea is to sink it then you need to know that all that cr*p is still going to get in the water. So, please stop wasting bandwidth with such suggestions and try to help those, trying to find a way to change the course - this is the only chance not only for humans but for the Mother Nature you are so much concerned of.

Homo sapiens are headed to certain, inevitable extinction. Mother Nature has endured much greater global catastrophes in the past. Mother Nature will survive and prosper for another billion years after humankind is gone.

Too bad for humankind. Our species is quickly running out of time. Extinction is looming ahead.

Hi David,

**Too bad for humankind. Our species is quickly running out of time. Extinction is looming ahead.

Be careful David.

1)You can think yourself into depression and end up throwing yourself in front of a coal train (joke, OK).

2) Since you feel all is hopeless, almost everyone will ignore you.

Paul

Hello Paul,

1)You can think yourself into depression and end up throwing yourself in front of a coal train (joke, OK).

I have an entire Universe and an entire planet and fifteen billion years to keep me happy in spite of the unfolding tragedy which is humankind. There is no cause for depression when the Universe is filled with so many beautiful things.

2) Since you feel all is hopeless, almost everyone will ignore you.

If I lied to you and you all listened to me that wouldn't exactly help the situation here on Earth that much, would it?

I will speak the truth and those who listen will hear.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Its like them religeous folks who go on about impending divine retribution. Doomsday cults are allways popular it seems, and we never run out of new sins to invent.

In the short run it is not possible.

In the long run, it is necessary and essential.

We move CO2 hundreds of miles, we move coal thousands of miles, we move electricity thousands of miles. The obstacles are not insuperable.

What we have to avoid now is 'locking in' an inappropriate technology.

Let's take a look at what Philip Verleger said just this Friday, in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal about biofuel use in the next 2-3 years.

"Last year was a tipping point in a lot of ways," says Philip Verleger Jr., an oil economist who heads PK Verleger LLC. "Biofuels will take bigger and bigger bites out of petroleum demand," Mr. Verleger said, noting climate-change and security concerns relating to the supply and use of petroleum. "Alternate fuels will take up all the growth, leaving petroleum demand static in the next two or three years."

I found the claim so surprising, even using say a very low 1.00% YOY demand growth in petroleum demand(which is lower than IEA) that I wrote to Verleger today to query whether he was properly quoted. Actually, I assumed he was properly quoted, but I wondered if the context had been correct.

He wrote back and said yes, he was properly quoted.

gregor

Opening statement tonight by POTUS in his SOTUS:

"The state of our Union Denial is strong."


Not just a River In Egypt

Turns out I was wrong.
It was the very last statement in the 2007 SOTUS.
Boy that Prezident of ours, he's a tricky little devil. Turned the turn tables on us.

what about water vapor and naturally occuring dust?
in terms of total particulate matter in the atmsophere - these natural sources make up over 80% of all emissions

Press reports say that the State of the Union speech is going to ask for 40 billion gallons of Biofuels (not only ethanol but also butanol, methanol, biodiesel ...). It may be doable over the next decade or two but clearly there are strong opinions on either side. However, the target will also be vulnerable to

(1) Oil companies refusal to share there distribution infrastructure (e.g. Chevron)

(2) predatory pricing by fossil fuel pumpers e.g. KSA, if substitution/conservation causes fossil derived prices to fall.

The Democrats should seize this opportunity to seal into code legislation to counter (1) and (2) above.

USA Strategic Petroleum Reserve Doubling - State of the Union Speech

The following article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR200701...
states that "President George W. Bush plans to call for a doubling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's capacity in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, the White House said."

and also that "U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman announced the government will buy 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil over a few months starting in the spring to add 11 million barrels to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve".

The link below
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html
states that for the USA Strategic Petroleum Reserve the "Current storage capacity - 727 million barrels
Current days of import protection in SPR - 59 days
(Maximum days of import protection in SPR - 118 days in 1985)"

George Bush wants to increase the current days of protection to about what they were in 1985. This requires buying another 727 million barrels.

Sam Bodman announced that the government will buy 100,000 barrels per day. At this buying rate it will take 7,270 days (20 years!) to buy 727 million barrels.

If the USA buys 1 million barrels per day then it would take two years to double SPR.

If the USA buys 0.5 million barrels per day then it would take four years.

The increase in annual global demand due to 0.5 million barrels per day to double USA SPR is another 0.6% (0.5/85). OPEC recently stated that they forecast global demand growth at about 1.5%. Wonder if part of their forecast includes an allowance for USA and other countries to increase their SPRs? Is this the real reason why Saudi Arabia is not "voluntarily" cutting production anymore?

The doubling of the USA SPR could increase annual demand significantly to over 2%! It could also act as a catalyst for high growth consumers China and India to act competitively and increase their demand to also have 120 days import protection from their SPRs.

under the eia reference case consumption scenario and assuming it takes the 10 years to fill, and current production rates of oil within US are constant at 9mbpd the US will be importing about 15mbpd, this would lead to covering 97 days of production, not the 120 that would be expected.

To double the length of time to 120 days in 10 years would take a reserve of about 1800 million barrels, which implies a filling rate of 300k barrels per day for the next 10 years.

yes i know the production rates of the US are optimistic by PO standards, however the eia predicts an increase to 10.4 mbpd. I split the difference and used constant production, which I consider a likely scenario if the alaskan oil field mentioned in the notes for the address (1mbpd) is opened up.

Andrew
--
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

**I consider a likely scenario if the alaskan oil field mentioned in the notes for the address (1mbpd) is opened up.

What 1mbpd field? If this is ANWR--well only one well has ever been drilled there. We don't know if there is any commercial quantity of hydrocarbons in area.

Paul

This sounds like a price support subsidy to the petroleum industry because prices have gone down a bit.

It seems to ideologically consistent with President Bush's normal position with respect to the oil industry. Kneeling.

The SPR fill will be at a rate of 1-million barrels/week ... not per day. It is a 20 year plan for construction and fill. It provides for 800 mil barrels increase from the present 700-mil in place.

This paves the way for a long standing goal of OECD/IEA to increase stocks from 55 days to 85 days.

The President's plan has an objective of reducing usa consumption by 2-mbd by 2017.

from aspo(72):
"Conventional manufacturing has now been in decline for several years, and agricultural production is also contracting, partly due to the depletion of the aquifers."

While not directly related to energy depletion, I feel that the fraction of the us 'energy balance' that is now imported is increasing, as the fraction of US gdp that is service based is increasing.
The depletion of the aquifers is also an environmental issue, but somehow i think that neither of these topics would end up being discussed as there is no way to fix them and win votes.

Does anyone know if the plan to increase alternative fuel vehicles from 3% to 15% by 2017 is sufficient to decrease oil consumption by the planned 2 mbpd?

It looks like the US is actually beginning to slightly care about its oil usage : more production (does anyone know if the 1Mbpd from the alaska area is feasible, and in what time frame?), more alternative fuels, less consumption, larger reserve.
The other side of this is its nothing that hasn't been promised before, and i don't know if it will happen this time.

Andrew
--
ps. oil rose $3 today, and the rise over the last week is $4.5 and looks like it could stay that way - i guess the week of cheap oil is over, even though fuel prices in Australia dropped below $1(au)/L for a few days.

C'mon...who will take up the bet?

Will Prince George say it????

Will the words "Peak Oil" pass those lips?

Or can we just count how many euphemisms he will use in place of PO?

It could be a drinking game..."Islamo-fascism"...take a shot..."break our addiction to oil"...pass the Tequila...."focus on alternatives"...hic, where's the hooch?

Honestly, I think he'll say it not just once, but several times.

The Bush energy proposals are now online at the White House website. They look similar to what was posted at TOD as a PDF.

Bush: Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal? [link]

I don't expect D.C. to do anything but make things worse.

Here's a link to the White House Briefing on the Energy section of the SOTU:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html

In the 20% reduction in 10 years bit, they say "In 2017, this will displace 20 percent of PROJECTED annual gasoline use."

Does anyone here know what those projections are? And what assumptions are made in them?

Bush's plan is maximally sleazy and wrong on the most important issue which could make a short-term difference: fuel efficiency standards.

Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule.

Note, extending the "current Light Truck Rule". THAT IS EXACTLY THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.

Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.

In other words, make cars, and uniquely cars more expensive (though fuel efficient), less safe and less powerful and desirable versus trucks.

THAT WILL WORSTEN THE PROBLEM.

The problem is that too many people drive trucks when they should drive cars. Changing that will do more than supporting more hybrid drive trains on already efficient cars.

The correct solution is first to eliminate the egregious exception that gives trucks such a preference.

If it uses more fuel, yes even knowing it's a truck, it will be less preferred.

Bush is 7 years late on this one and getting later every day!

It looks like California will do it for him first.

Will Bush at least allude to a connection between energy/oil and our need to stay in Iraq/Middle East?

He should. We all recognize it. And can his approval ratings in relation to Iraq get any worse? If we are at/near PO, I think the public is ready for the diagnosis. Does anyone else find it interesting that the decision to double the SPR comes a few months after Mr. Simmons' presentation to the Department of Defense (with an election in the interim)?

Funny how the Republicans get the environmental results while the Democrats get the reputation.

-Teddy Roosevelt inaugurated the world's first National Park when he set aside Yellowstone. Throughout his two terms he set aside millions of acres of natural areas.

-Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and signed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

-George W Bush bestowed monument status on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which span 1,200 nautical miles. To put this area in context, this national monument is more than 100 times larger than Yosemite National Park. It's larger than 46 of 50 states, and more than seven times larger than all our national marine sanctuaries combined. It is the largest wildlife refuge in the world. Bush also signed the Renewable Fuels Standard establishing ethanol and biodiesel as viable commodities that will reduce pollution.

The mainstream media likes to spin the narrative that the Democrats are the environmentally aware party but they never do anything to deserve that reputation. What is more common is seeing people like Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy opposing offshore wind farms that block his elite view of the water. Pathetic.

Funny how the Republicans get the environmental results while the Democrats get the reputation.

Oh my, Keithster100, I just heard the crashing sound of Hell freezing over. The Republicans and the Democrats are equally horrible at protecting the environment. Both political parties are financed by the same corporate and industrial interests, and both have drunk the same kool-aide of infinite economic & population growth.

The Earth is dying from the human plague. Future generations will inherit a hellish planet which is depleted, degraded, polluted, abused, and inhospitable to human life. They will curse their ancestors for its selfishness, recklessness, and sheer stupidity.

But there is no need to worry. Once Homo sapiens have become extinct Nature will clean up our mess and return the Earth back to a pristine condition with a flourishing diversity of life.

The Earth will become a better place once humankind has finished exterminating itself from the Universe. God bless the fossil fuel industry!

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

In spite of the Republican record for 'getting things done' it is unlikely that Bush will get anything done unless he tries. It is even more unlikely that he will get anything done unless he stops getting in the way.

As it is I wouldn't hold my breath. As a matter of fact, holding your breath in a lot of North American cities is probably preferable to breathing near a freeway.

dmathew -- if you hate humanity so much why don't you kill yourself?

Just curious how you justify your existence.

Hello cycling in hollywood,

dmathew -- if you hate humanity so much why don't you kill yourself?

I live for the sunshine, the sand, the water, and life itself.

I don't hate humankind at all. Those who want to learn must first learn to listen.

Now what do you live for?

No one 'justifies their existence'. Existence just is.

Human beings are an evolutionary product. They are predisposed towards survival, even in appalling conditions. So pretty much no misanthrope worth their salt is going to kill themselves just because they hate mankind. It goes against the programming, you see. Did Schopenhauer kill himself? No, he lived as a merry old batchelor until he carked it.

(Yes, I note that dmathew says he isn't misanthropic... it's a general argument I want to raise)

It is quite possible to believe that the world would be better off without people but to go on living cheerfully. I part ways with dmathew because I have no particular philosophical attachment to life in general (as opposed to human life). I myself think the entire Universe would be improved if it were completely devoid of any life whatsoever. Remember how Dawkins once put it? 'The amount of suffering in the animal world at any particular moment is beyond decent contemplation.' Try the exercise. Work backwards: just start with all the suffering of human beings, right now. Then add the horrendous terrors of the past. Now stick the animal kingdom into it. Get the picture? Life, all life, really is fundamentally horrible.

And yet I love my daughter, think sunsets are beautiful, etc. I ain't dying for as long as I can help it. The two viewpoints co-exist. On the one hand, the limited human capacity for rational understanding, and on the other, the genetically determined desire to remain alive and to breed.

Whether you find it palatable or not, it is quite rational to conclude that life, the phenomenon, really does suck. And yet go on living happily.

Remember how Dawkins once put it? 'The amount of suffering in the animal world at any particular moment is beyond decent contemplation.'

Richard Dawkins is mistaken about that (and many other subjects as well). Animals do not suffer nor do they have any concept of suffering. They may experience pain and otherwise die horribly but still the animals do not, and can not, suffer.

The concept and the experience of suffering is an experience which is limited exclusively to Homo sapiens (and possibly to several of our closest primate relatives). Beyond that, there is no suffering.

Whether you find it palatable or not, it is quite rational to conclude that life, the phenomenon, really does suck. And yet go on living happily.

I do not believe and do not say that life sucks. Life is wonderful, it is a gift, it is a blessing, and something that people should treasure (but do not).

My argument on behalf of humankind's extinction is not based upon any sort of value judgment regarding life's merits. The extinction of Homo sapiens is a purely natural phenomenon, or it would be if humankind had chosen to behave purely naturally. Under the present circumstances, the extinction of Homo sapiens is a suicidal act that the species has committed against itself, a self-inflicted catastrophe generated by the anti-natural self-destructive behavior of individual humans.

Life is wonderful. The Universe is beautiful. But Homo sapiens are certainly and inevitably and inescapably headed to extinction.

If our species loved life its members would behave differently.

Too bad for humankind, but the Universe will go on very well without us. The Universe loses nothing in the loss of humankind.

But this is all water under the bridge, as it were, because humankind's fate is already settled and we can not -- and, more importantly, will not -- do anything to avert the catastrophe which is coming.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

I do not believe and do not say that life sucks. Life is wonderful, it is a gift, it is a blessing, and something that people should treasure (but do not).

Sorry, we appear to be at cross-purposes here. I was not talking to you, but to your cycling interlocutor. Likewise I attribute no positions to you, and indeed explicitly acknowledge that you do not share the positions I put forth.

Nonetheless, I am very surprised at your rather bizarre speciesism. Dawkins is not wrong about the stupendous amount of suffering by sentient life. (By the way, Dawkins would not share the general philosophical position I am putting forth: I am just using his quote because he made that particular point more succinctly than I could). You think horses in the First World War did not suffer when they were ripped to shreds by shrapnel? Dogs do not suffer when they are run over? A mouse does not suffer as a cat rips it apart? Anything that has a central nervous system and can feel pain suffers, by definition. And that alone is enough to disqualify the entire biosphere from any sort of positive recommendation. Remember: the only reason we actually value life is because we are predisposed, in practice, to love it more or less no matter what. Even when enslaved or in death camps, most of us keep going. Most of us think life is always worth it. We can't help it. We find it hard to make a rational assessment of the question. It's the way we are wired.

I have to say I think you are being quite inconsistent. You think life is a 'wonderful gift', but nonetheless maintain that the human race should go extinct. At least I think we (and everything else) should go extinct because the whole thing 'sucks'. Essentially, you want people to go extinct because they don't value what you do. ('Those dumb b*stards prefer SUVS to trees!'). I want us to go extinct because that would mean an end to suffering. My viewpoint can claim a certain consistency, but yours is merely egotistical.

(And please everyone, else no red herrings about how I should therefore go off and kill myself... I've addressed the necessary split between intellect and behaviour above).

The Earth will become a better place once humankind has finished exterminating itself from the Universe. God bless the fossil fuel industry!

I like the cut of your jib, young fella-me-lad!

(Old 'Black Adder' quote. I've always wanted to say that on an Internet forum...)

Keith;
Nice Spin. Bush could dedicate all of South America and it wouldn't make up for the policies he has put or kept in place. (Some of them surely inherited from Clinton, no doubt) Taking the powerplants that were in violation of Nixon's clean air standards off of the 'ticketed' list.. Giving Exxon a 2bil tax break in the quarter when they made the greatest profits of any corp in history.. Dumping another lifetimes' worth of DU, Napalm and other trash onto the heads of Iraqi and Afghani families? Cutting funding for all the RE research that he has espoused in his SOTU charades?

You can say the Dems have done nothing, if you choose to plant your post pretending there are no examples but the Kennedy's and their Wind-spat.

Keith,

Enjoyed your post but you know politics, religion and peak oil are not to be discussed in polite company. Adding to your list, the Republicans freed the slaves (hence the Dixiecrats) and ended the Vietnam war started by Kennedy. Now I don't find the Republicans to be saints and admire JFK and many other Democrats but object to the almost Pavlovian hatred which now seems to accompany the mention of sssshhh Republicans. It is a discussion, alas, for another place.

The two events which I find of greatest interest over the past two weeks are: 1) The President mentions in the State of the Union Address that we should cut gasoline consumption by 20% over the next ten years - Wow. Bush is not Carter and I believe much of his family's money was made from oil. One might say, well, he is pandering to the electorate. Many people may despise Bush but he really hasn't done much pandering to the electorate the past couple years. This is by far the strongest confirmation I have heard to date that Peak Oil is an issue considered seriously at the highest levels of government. Interestingly the 2% decrease is exactly half that recommended by a panel of military and corporate leaders (and half that discussed in the excellent post by Stuart at the end of 2006)

2) For the first time in, I believe, some 20 years US demand for oil decreased in 2006. Now some of this was due to unusually warm temperatures but it would be great for some TOD brainiac to look at this in more depth. It is all the more surprising to me in that demand would be expected to increase. Considering the economy grew even as use of oil declined it is tremendously optimistic as regards Peak Oil. It is possible, though I do not rule out varied dangerous extreme scenarios that we have, for many posters, sort of the worst of both worlds. Peak Oil is not a fallacy to be disproven, it is also not an apocalyptic scenario it is just a pain in the, er, neck, as we paradigm shift to something else. We still have to go to work and we still have to deal with one another. Still, sometimes there are momentous events and Peak Oil and GW make pretty good candidates but doesn't anyone else find it astonishing that in a growing economy we decreased our use of oil in 2006? -PD

I don't think demand dropped in any significant amount. Supposedly oil usage dropped by about 59 million barrels 2005 to 2006 However, the amount added to stocks and the SPR in 2005 was about 54 million barrels, vs 18 million in 2006. Therefore, 36 of the 58 million barrel drop in usage was just oil we didn't put into storage compared to the previous year.

Granted, a year of basically no increase in usage is pretty significant, but I don't think it tells us anything about whether we can really reduce our usage.

Reducing petroleum use by 10% by 2017?
Credible long range forecasts on TOD have world production down at least 20% by then.

Only Campbell and Skrebowski see this 20% slide. The concensus is that global production will be 94-mbd in 2017. And peaking in 2020.

Looking at Colin's forecast ten years back we should be at 64-mbd today. Chris's forecasts have been upward revised almost 10-mbd since he started Megaprojects. While i have respect for both gentlemen, "credible" is a stretch until they improve their methodology.

To simplify their inherent problems, their bottom-up flow forecasts are based on production/refinery announcements in play or immenent. They assume no new facilities post 2012. Their projections are conservative worst case scenarios based on present information. While this provides us with a baseline, their upward revisions speak to the downfall of using these predictions for long term decision making. They are excellent short and medium term Outlooks.

Not petroleum use - gasoline use.

petroleum consumption by 10% by 2017

since the world wide production of carbon dioxide is about 6,500 million metric tons a year which is 6,500,000,000,000kg per year according to the graph above and carbon dioxide has a density of 1.98kg per cubic meter that's about 3,282,828,282,828 cubic meters of carbon dioxide a year which if you take the cube root of that you get a 14,862 meter long tall and deep cube of carbon dioxide which equates to 3284 cubic kilometers or 788 cubic mile of carbon dioxide a year that is just a huge amount

It is 6.5 billion tons of carbon. To get the mass of CO2 you need to multiply by 44/12 = 23.8 mln.tons of CO2

oops my bad

My Reaction to the State of the Union

I think it’s great to set ambitious goals. It’s true that if you set stretch goals, but fall a bit short, you still probably did OK. But it is also important to set goals that have a reasonable chance of success, especially when the consequences of falling short are high.

In President Bush’s State of the Union address tonight, he called for a 20% reduction in our gasoline consumption in the next 10 years. That’s a noble goal, and one that I fully support. For this goal, President Bush deservedly received a standing ovation. In fact, a 20% reduction would still have the U.S. using significantly more energy than the average European (we currently use about double the energy of the average European). So, one might think that we might look to Europe - given their current energy usage - as a model for helping us to lower our consumption here in the U.S.

But, as you might have noticed we like to do things our own way in the U.S. Sure, the Europeans (as well as most other countries) have had success, but we live in the land of the non-negotiable lifestyle. Therefore, we can't emulate the Europeans. We have to find a way to keep running those gas-guzzlers so we can shun public transportation and drive anywhere, anytime we wish.

Bush's proposal would be to increase our level of biofuels production by 35 million gallons in the next 10 years. Not surprisingly, this was well-received by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley. I think "giddy" would accurately describe his demeanor as the camera panned on him. The president then got back on track and recommended improved the economy standards on cars to save another 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline in the next 10 years. He in fact said a lot of things that, if followed through, would greatly benefit the U.S. He discussed solar power and plug in hybrids, two of my passions. But I fear that we are too heavily counting on biofuels to deliver.

Look, I have no problem with the goal of increasing biofuels production. I think it's a good goal, but as we know it can have unwanted consequences. Clearly we do not produce enough corn and soybeans to achieve this goal, so the technology that is being counted on is almost certainly cellulosic ethanol. And while cellulosic ethanol has great potential, we need to realistically understand that there is a reason that cellulosic ethanol plants are not up and running today.

Certain Silicon Valley entrepreneurs would have you believe that we just have to fund enough start ups and the technology breakthroughs will come. But it isn't always as simple as calling your shot and then delivering it. Some people point to Moore's Law and think it's that simple. It is not that simple. Moore's Law has only recently started bumping up against basic chemistry and physics. Production of cellulosic ethanol has been bumping up against these limits for years. I have previously weighed in on the current status of cellulosic ethanol technology, as well as the amount of biomass required for implementation. Clearly the technology is not yet ready for prime time.

And that brings me to my major concern: Is there a contingency plan? Cellulosic ethanol will see technology improvements. No doubt. What if they aren't enough? What if, as is the case with a number of medical issues like cancer, we are still struggling with this issue in 10 years? Based on where we are right now, I think there is a pretty decent probability of that. Others, like Vinod Khosla, think the can do attitude of Silicon Valley will ensure success. But just in case, what is the backup plan? Are we going to operate without one? If world oil production peaks in the next few years, as I think is likely, where will we be if cellulosic ethanol doesn't deliver? Will we merely count on sky-high prices to destroy demand (while also destroying lives)? Will we send troops to Venezuela to keep the oil flowing?

When we are serious about attacking our energy dependence, we will go after the demand side. I believe that a revenue neutral gas tax would seriously cut into our demand over time. This is, of course, the main reason for Europe’s success in maintaining a much lower level of energy usage. Such an approach works, and Europeans enjoy a nice standard of living. Perhaps we will decide to take this proven approach for reducing consumption before declining oil production forces higher prices on us before we have time to prepare.

We have to find a way to keep running those gas-guzzlers so we can shun public transportation and drive anywhere, anytime we wish.

If the US were in a situation where we could drive anywhere, anytime only when we wish, then we would be far along toward preparing for what is to come. Most people have to drive everwhere, all the time, for everything, even when they don't wish to.

We're just about there where I live. Hope you all are happy with your own community's progress.

Too bad you weren't selected to give the rebuttal; made a lot more sense than the "professional" politicians.

Hello Robert

Congrats for the balanced and well argumented position. You have clearly expressed my other concerns about the rest of the alternative energies - everyone is counting on them to deliver, but where is the contingency plan? Or to express it more figuratively - how responsible is it to bet on a lame horse, hoping it "gets better" during the race?

I'm afraid as an European I have to distance myself a bit from yuor affiliation towards the way we're approaching the energy problems. Most of the compact cities setup was not a result of responsible long-term policy but from a scarcity of resources (land at first place). True, this scarcity has created and these policies were driven by some kind of "doing with less" ethics. But left unchecked (as it often does) it easily surrenders to the overconsumption drive. We already have our suburbs in Europe (and they are groing!). And public policy slowly retreats from its responsibility.

In addition, watching the state of delusion in the European commission and such I have to make an appeal - if we need to copy something from Europe, please let it be not the way politicians think. The city plans are OK, but not much of the rest... GWB at least I credit with the pragmatism, characteristic to US. Even the biofuel distraction has its rationale (corn lobby et.al. - I almost expected this guy to start jumping from joy). European institutions may not be so corrupt (ergh?), but they more than compensate with plain incompetence.

Personally I am half-happy with the president's speech. I was looking (fearing) for indications of toughening the position towards Iran. But I did not find any, only the same ol' "terroist are coming to get us" crap. But I am truly worried by that "voluntary civilian military reserve" (how long is the voluntary part going to be there?). And the worst part was that troops increase by 92,000 over the next five years. This thing begins to smell.

I think all the signs are he will go for Iran.

Oddly, that is why he is not ratcheting up the rhetoric. They want surprise on their side.

The US has compulsorary registration, but no draft. Whilst obviously a draft would be a short hop, it is worth hearing what the generals say about it. To a man, any serious military officer has rejected a restoration of the Draft (whilst bemoaning the degree to which the public at large is disconnected from the sacrifices of US fighting men and women).

Which is that it would do the US no good. The US problem is the need for skilled and experienced technicians, engineers, traffic cops, planners, linguists, intelligence specialists etc. at all levels in the military.

What it does *not* need is a half million 18 year olds. The vast majority of the Army is technical and support specialists, and it takes anything up to 10 years to create people like that, let alone officers and NCOs to lead them.

So unless the US had some kind of 'elite draft' where they draft middle class, mid career professionals, the draft isn't going to do them any good, militarily.

"I think all the signs are he will go for Iran."
"What it does *not* need is a half million 18 year olds."

I don't correlate those two very well, not in the longer run. Iraqi experience showed that if you want to "control the locals" you need to deploy huge manpower to handle the insurgence. Stealth fighters don't work very well against roadside bombers.

IMO the plan for Iran is different than Iraq and a more subtle one. First they intend to weaken the country by imposing sanctions, and more importantly by blocking oil&gas deals with foreign companies. The final goal of course is a regime change to something controlled by Washington. I think military actions are planned only if this strategy does not succeed, and this is well down the road.

Having said this I don'e exclude limited bombing of the nuclear installations by Israel. But I expect officially US to "disapprove" this action.

Israel won't bomb Iran without US tacit approval. The Israeli planes would have to fly across US controlled and patrolled airspace. They have cruise missiles on subs, but unless they use nukes, it wouldn't be enough.

No one expects an occupation of Iran. What is in prospect is a giant raid: air sorties followed by commando operations. the extreme suggestion is that the US or Israel will use nuclear weapons to crack Natanz open like an egg.

Even a 1 million man US Army couldn't hold down Iran-- mountainous, huge, 70 million people. 10 million in Tehran alone. The country is not occupiable by a hostile power, for any length of time.

Think the Israeli operation against Hizbollah this summer, which some are calling 'the prequel'. 3 weeks of aerial and sea based pounding, some brutal house to house fighting in the villages, and then Israel withdraws. This was supposedly the dry run for the attack on Iran (neutralise the main threat to Israel before you go after the main objective which is the Iranian regime).

As I said, the Draft wouldn't solve the US problem. Unless it was a draft of skilled middle class people-- police officers, firemen, medical personnel, aircraft mechanics, etc. *that* really would be a political impossibility. And many of those civic minded people are already in the National Guard or the Reserves.

Agree compact cities are a legacy of the past -- they used to have walls around them, in fact!

However Europe has invested in mass transit systems. The US was once covered by a more extensive streetcar network than Europe, but allowed GM to buy it up and close it down. Europe has continued to subsidise and run these systems, and is now expanding them again. The same is true of national passenger railway networks.

Europe has definitely had a policy to conserve energy. Via high gasoline taxes, via encouraging diesel engines (a clear tradeoff against clean air), via standards of home insulation. Yes there are deviations (German autobahn speedlimits--lack of) but that general course of action is true across the Continent, and in the UK.

Whereas US politicians are defeated if they even propose higher gasoline taxes.

You could say that is a realism about the limited domestic resources of energy we now have-- put it crudely, we have German and Polish lignite, Norwegian and British gas, and not a lot else. (some hydro)

But since the 1974 oil crisis, there has been a realism in Europe about making sure that we do not squander energy.

The real post child is of course Japan, which despite having a relatively industrialised economy has made huge strides in energy efficiency and is a world leader in solar power.

I think that Bush is basically talking hot air. Biofuels is good politics, but not good energy policy.

However Europe has invested in mass transit systems.

And the rationale was in fact to preserve the compact cities. Not a sane person would agree historical city centers to be demolished for highways.

I am just not sure that this conservation policy was out of sustainability far-sightness. Even back then there was significant pressure against the cost and "inefficiences" of mass transit systems. Many businesses wanted Europe to follow the growth oriented pattern of US, and now with the new neo-liberal policies coming online I think they will start getting their way. It's the normal path of capitalism - concentration of capital, pressure for reducing regulation and taxes, providing low-cost access to the commons etc. For some time European socialism seemed to successfully counter this pressure, but IMO this is starting to change in recent years.

Watch for example the EU position on the liquid fuel problem we are facing. Do they rely on mass transit (the community solution) as the only viable long-term solution at hand? Not that I know. They are relying on biofuels. This is the US way, not the traditional European way.

I am just not sure that this conservation policy was out of sustainability far-sightness.

I understand that the historical reason for the very compact cities was because many of the cities predate the automobile. But Europe still deserves a great deal of credit for investing in mass transit, for encouraging adoption of passenger diesel cars, and for maintaining high gas taxes, which has definitely encouraged conservation. You don't give yourselves enough credit. Could more be done? Sure. But the U.S. would do well by looking to Europe instead of striking out on a path with no guarantee of success, and lots of questions about unintended consequences.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said

'America will always do the right thing. But only after it tries everything else'

The US is optimised for a free market, cheap land, cheap energy world. If that changes, then the US is no longer the necessary front runner.

Conversely Europe has next to no domestic energy resources, other than hydro (a bit), biomass (Scandinavia), solar, wind and some coal, plus a fast depleting oil and gas reserve. None of which at the moment makes up for our huge imports of gas (and coal) and oil.

FWIW I think you're both right. Europe is where it is as much by default as by careful planning *but* the events of the 1970s and our total dependency on foreign oil scared the heck out of European nations, and the high gas taxes, French nuclear power industry and advanced rail systems of Europe are all partial responses to that.

Each European nation has chosen its own path. From the UK (focus on privatisation and deregulation) to France (more or less the opposite) through Sweden (conservation) through Germany (a little of all of the above).

When I read that 40% of new car sales in Japan are sub 1 litre engine microcars, I realise there is so much more that we could do.

Sweden (conservation)

Not as I see it from inside Sweden. Lots of hydro power, lots of nuclear power and lots of biomass, mostly for heating. The building code and tradition is fairly energy efficient but our energy handling in general is more like having lots of most everything withouth getting completely wastefull and short sighted.

We have a decent infrastructure for the post peak oil era and reasonable investments and reinvestments in transportation and electricity infrastructure. For instance biomass and electricity has soon eradicated heating oil use but not thru conservation, it would take 50-100 years to turn over the housing stock.

Compared to other western nations Swedes are very efficient users of energy, particularly for a highly industrialised economy with a lot of basic industries.

350,000 heat pumps is more heat pumps than installed in the rest of the world, I believe. And yes they use electricity, but they are so efficient compared to alternatives that I would count it as 'conservation' (even with the energy loss from generation and transmission).

All of which says more perhaps about the rest of us than about Swedish virtues ;-).

Ground source heat pumps and wood pellet burners are the main competitors for replacing heating oil and resistive electric heating in houses outside of the reach for small and large district heating networks. Ground source heat pumps are also competeing with district heating wich has prompted some politicians top try to ban them in dense areas, an idea I find dumb, the competition is valuble for keeing the tariffs reasonable.

Firewood heating in combination with an 1-3 m3 heat accumulator is common, the rural systems are often more primitive.

Sometimes people combine any of these systems with a small solar panel for heating hot water, additional heat input before and after summer and some free heat input to a ground source well. It seldom makes economical sense since so little fuel is needed for hot water.

Small wood pellet stoves and air source heat pumps are used to complement resistive heated houses since retrofitting water radiators is expensive.

Manny new small houses gets their hot water and heating from a heat pump using outgoing ventilation air as a heat source, sometimes complemented with a shallow ground source borehole.

Drilling vertically for ground source heat is more common then laying a long shallow coil since the bedrock often is close to the surface.

I think most of the wood pellet technology originally comes from Austria. Most of the heat pumps are integrated in Sweden but the compressors are imported and the overall quality has not been good, manny systems have problems after only a few years continous use and it took some time for the contractors to learn how to deliver good installations.

I dont find anything with this especially remarkable since manny things could be done in a better way. For instance the Finns have much more combined heat and power plants while we still have manny large district powerplants that dont make any fairly cheap electricity while making hot water.

I believe that a revenue neutral gas tax would seriously cut into our demand over time.

Of course the tax would curb use. The revenue neutral part is optional. This is stupendously obvious.

Higher efficiency does not lead to lower consumption. That, my friends, is called putting the cart before the horse.

If anybody has even taken the most rudimentary economics course, you learned how demand was kept under control in market economies. Yes, you change the PRICE. In fact, this is the ONLY grown-up way to curb demand. The demand for everything else in the market is controlled by price, why in gods name would we think that gas or oil would or could be different? You raise the price, and lower consumption /higher efficiency will soon follow. Efficiency and consumption are EFFECTS of higher price..but that does NOT mean that higher efficiency effects lower consumption! That is false logic.

E.G. Electrical apppliances have gotten more efficient every year for 30 years. Electical consumption has gone up every single one of those years. Why would oil/gas be different? Because you want it to be?

To think something will be true because you want it to be true is childish. Given this characterisation, I would have to say that many comments posted here strike me as childish. In contrast, RR's post, was a very enlightened notable exception.

Note per capita electricity consumption in California has *not* risen since 1980, whereas it has by 40% in the rest of the country.

This may be partly due to high electricity prices, but it is also due to high standards for appliances, buildings etc. Some of the toughest codes in the US.

Robert,

I am thanking you for all the great information you have provided over the years, and asking you to be supportive of a crusade. On the TOD board discussion, I made reference to a post the other day by Khebab
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2186

I have repeated the link, because as I explain in the text of that post, it was a revolutionary change in perception for me, as I repeat here:

Only a couple of days ago, in a post right here on TOD
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2186 by Khebab
it was released in a very visual way that the entire oil consumption of the world in a year will fit into only ONE CUBIC MILE. (recall that the surface area of the United States alone is 3,536.278 or approximately 3.5 million miles. Canada is another 3.5 million square miles.

This revealation was an astounding perceptual leap to any thinking person, almost disorienting in implications, pointing out as it does that we would only have to extract the energy equal to one cubic mile of oil to match WORLD oil consumption. The variaty of methods, of biofuels that far exceed the reach of ethanol, which is already being pushed aside, as the big players like DuPont and BP go after Biobutanol, the recapture of waste and methane recapture, the confluence of solar and wind with the above mentioned raw materials easily captured from 3.5 million square miles of biological activity (not even counting the ocean activity close to shore), and methods to stretch the impact of every BTU produced, through energy recapture by way of hydraulics, hybrid electric and regenerative braking, and conservation design in lighting, heating, and passive building orientation.

We must recall that the one cubic mile was WORLD production. The United States consumes only a quarter of that, thus, we would only have to replicate one quarter cubic mile to essentially duplicate all the oil we consume in a year. What at one time seemed daunting now begins to seem like nothing more than a great investment opportunity, and a chance at high tech careers for our children.

Given what I now know, I am asking any and all technicians and scientific theorists to look anew at the combined concepts of bio fuel and confluence with solar, wind, and hydrogen extraction from renewable sources. We must begin to think in terms of that cubic mile of fuel. The methods of extracting this from the biological activity and waste and methane release from a nation of 3.5 million square acres, in the fewest possible steps or "conversions" is now where the push can and must be made. Again, recall that the "cubic mile" is the worlds production, the U.S. can have fantastic effects on world demand and markets simply by working to replicate only ONE QUARTER of cubic mile. Alcohols such as Butanol, BioDiesel, and recovered methane all have energy density per pound and per volume competitive with fossil fuels.
Much in the way of infrastructure can be afforded to this. Think for a moment that all the tankers, refineries, pipelines, pumps, wells, offshore wells, water oil seperators, etc, go to gather and move that ONE CUBIC MILE of oil.

Below, for those unfamiliar, is a beginning bibliography of links, concerning Butanol, biofuel, hydrogen directly from solar, and biomass, as gathered in recent monthes, after having began to follow a path first opened up by yours truly, one Robert Rapier in a post on TOD. I tried to find your butanol post on R-squared, but couldn't chase it down, I know I have it in a saved file, I just don't know which one, so reprint the link if you can.

The supporters of low carbon bio and solar fuels need to begin to form into an affiliated alliance. We should be promoting Universities, colleges and technical vocational schools to begin developing the hands on digesters, fermentation facilities, and biochemical facilities to begin to create this new industry. We should be developing publications and forums to let the American people know how far along this technology already is, that there are big players such as DuPont and BP already getting in, and that the United States, contrary to the "doom" and gloom that has been spread about, has MORE than enough raw material, land space, talant and sun and wind to combine all the above together and create a whole new liquids fuels and efficiency industry that will make this nation not poorer, but richer, in careers, in mobility, in freedom, and in PRIDE and self determination.
The destiny of a nation is being formed now, and those who have been spokespeople for the new industries (you front among them) can take pride in the groundwork that has been laid. But, I ask as a favor, as someone who respects technical and scientific creativity, that you and others help spread the message about what is not only possible, but what must be done. We are fortunate to be approaching one of those decisive moments in American history, as great as the original industrial revolution, the birth of automotive traval, the aviation age, or the communication ages of radio and television. Will we have the nerve and the inventiveness to create a destiny for ourselves and our children?

It is there for us.
Thank you. Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout

http://www.butanol.com/

http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/index.html

http://butanol.com/docs/2002_NREL_Lignin.pdf

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/30/biobutanol-the-other-white-meat/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_acetobutylicum

http://www.epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/fra/fra003.htm

http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independenc...

http://www.hydrogensolar.com/principles.html

Hi Roger,

Here is my post on biobutanol:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/bio-butanol.html

I think the potential there is high, but the people involved are pretty secretive about it. As you may know, I worked as an engineer on conventional butanol for 6 years, so I know quite a bit about the overall process. One of my patents is for a novel butanol production process that I invented while working in Germany.

The destiny of a nation is being formed now, and those who have been spokespeople for the new industries can take pride in the groundwork that has been laid. But, I ask as a favor, as someone who respects technical and scientific creativity, that you and others help spread the message about what is not only possible, but what must be done. We are fortunate to be approaching one of those decisive moments in American history, as great as the original industrial revolution, the birth of automotive travel, the aviation age, or the communication ages of radio and television. Will we have the nerve and the inventiveness to create a destiny for ourselves and our children?

Roger,

You mean well, but are sadly delusional.
Even as you scribe here, the forces of evil are hard at work in Washington DC dismantling the American Patent system and making sure that no small innovator ever gets rewarded again.

It may be off-topic from Peak Oil, but study up on "Patent Deform". For quite a number of years now, powerful lobbyist forces in Wash DC have been slowly dismantling the US Patent system, making it more and more difficult for anyone but the biggest and richest of corporations to get or keep patents. The lobbyists mis-name their tactics as "Patent Reform". It's a total lie. It's also a complicated and esoteric subject. Those who are closer to the trenches know that the entire US Patent Office is being intentionally dismantled by the current "administration" (only 2 more hellish years to go --we can only hope) and their bufoonish ways of managing everything they touch. (Atta boy Brownie. Atta boy Dudas.)

So you have great hopes for Yankee ingenuity to come through and save the day? You and what pro-patent government agency? It doesn't exist in today's Ownership Oriented Society. The decay is from within. It's been going on unnoticed for many years now. Wake up and smell the termites.

p.s.

a little more info if you're interested:

Just so you know, the IPO is an organization of large multi-national companies and their large law firms who are backing the present push to change US patent law. According to most all other interested parties the proposed changes will weaken the patent system, not strengthen it.

Considering this, it should be no surprise to find IPO members don’t like patents -except their own. ....
regards,

Steve Wren
inventor
St Louis, MO USA
stevewr@synerty.net

taken from http://www.zdnet.co.uk/forums/0,1000000782,39219594-39001041c-20081699o,...

The Professional Inventors Alliance has compiled a summary of the major points of contention concerning House Bill HR 2795, the "Patent Reform Act of 2005". In addition to using our "printer friendly version", we are making these available in both PDF or use in your Word Processing program.

Feel free to share these points of view with your friends as well your Congressman or Senator.

taken from:
http://www.piausa.org/general_info/pia_talking_points/

OK Now I'm ranting:

At the dawn of the 21st century, the obvious nexus for U.S. prosperity and security is technological innovation. And at present, as for much of this country's history, the climate for fostering such innovation has been created by the American patent system.

This system, established under the Constitution, has rewarded inventors for sharing their creativity with others by assuring that their rights to earn royalties from their breakthroughs would be protected for 17 years. The result has been a position of unrivaled U.S. dominance with respect to intellectual property. By some estimates, we own 10 times as much as the rest of the industrialized world combined.
...
Toward this end, they [anti-American countries] have mounted a sustained and multifaceted effort - one that is far less obvious, but every bit as insidious an assault on America's economic interests and national security as the episodes documented by the Cox Committee. The objective is to weaken the U.S. patent system by making it over (read, dumbing it down) so it will conform to the inferior approach utilized with such dismal results by our international competitors.

More here.

Bush's proposal would be to increase our level of biofuels production by 35 million gallons in the next 10 years.

That should of course be 35 billion gallons. I also received an e-mail stating the CTL would be part of the 35 billion, so it isn't all biofuels.

Well, Dubya stuck to the script.

The Democratic response basically brushed right over the energy stuff, and emphasized jobs and Iraq. Probably smart, politically; voters don't care about anything except Iraq right now.

Even CNN's wingnut commentators barely mentioned energy. Bill Schneider said something about the global warming thing, saying that it was new, but wasn't likely to sway anyone.

More than ever, I'm convinced that if there's anything to be done, it's going to be on the local level.

OK, watched some of the SOTU speech and have one question.

Why was Cheney smirking during the energy part of Bush's speech?

All other times, he was pretty stone-faced. Man...that guy does not even blink. I was watching him for reactions from Bush's words...well..probably Cheney's words only spoken by Bush.

Well, Georgy was doing the very same - I swear this guy was winking at the congressmen. And here is the translation (provided by my undercover congress agent): "Well guys, you know what the game is: I talk you pretend to belive me. Next term you talk and we pretend to believe you, deal?"

DF

Why was Cheney smirking during the energy part of Bush's speech?

I noticed that too. He Laughed, AND smirked. I wondered what he was thinking.

He was thinking: "Ha Ha. My smirking chimp imitations will befuddle and bewilder those damn TOD readers. Serves them right for meddling in energy issues. I'm the energy decider man, not them."

Here is a thought. Given that the rising demand for corn to make ethanol, it is pretty much accepted that certain food costs will rise. Putting aside the mass starvation hysteria for a moment and focusing on the impact within the United States, we will likely see high fructose corn syrup dramtically increasing in price (among other things). This is not necessarily a bad thing given that HFCS is at the heart of a lot of the crap food that this country consumes. The closely related curse of cheap oil is cheap food, but not necessarily good food. Given the obesity epidemic consuming this country, the rise of Type II Diabetes, cutting off our supply of Ding-Dongs and Ho-Hos might not be a bad thing.

Note that I do not advocate Corn-based Ethanonl by any stretch, I am only musing on the possible unintended consequences. When you perturb a complex system such as the national energy intrastructure you often get very unexpected outcomes. Some good and some bad....

Nice Graph. Can someone supply a source or attribution for it?