Open questions....

Can biomass be blended with coal in current plants to lower sulphur emissions and fossil CO2? (and has anyone estimated how much wasted biomass from yard debris and agricultural waste we can capture?)

How much do you all think corn prices will increase? And will this be good for the american diet (less corn syrup, less grain intensive meat)?

Hi,

This one goes out to Mr. Robert Rapier,

Here is my note to the white house tonight:

Mr. George W. Bush

Hello. I would consider myself one of those pesky liberals that voted against you and has disparaged your name for the last six years. I have to say that I'm on the brink of feeling guilty about that. I watched the speech tonight and I gotta say it moved me. Your in a tough spot, no doubt. I had the sense, though, during the presentation that the 'compassionate conservative' was more than a Carl Rove talking point.
I hope you are listening to me because I believe that my advise is sound. I know that there is great pressure to follow the ethanol plan/route. Perhaps those mid-West politicians are telling you, in confidence, that they know that ethanol is not going to work out in the end. They've see the facts and know that its hog-wash…But, then they lean over and whisper in your ear that our country has to move in the direction of an alternative to petrol. They whisper that supporting and announcing ethanol as a viable solution will shine a light on the issue at hand in a very positive and diplomatic way. Well, Mr. President, I'm here to tell you that that is brilliant spin that couldn't have been invented by a better spin doctor than Mr. Rove himself. The truth, as I'm sure your aware, is that the life blood of our economy (the world's economy..the worlds survival for that matter) is slowly, inexorably declining. I don’t think we have time or the luxury to play games and pussy-foot around the issue. Please, for the sake of my son and the rest of the 6+ billion of us poor souls on this Earth, will you consider a different approach??
The truth as Mr. Matt Simmons has so eloquently and clearly expounded upon is that it is time for a Manhattan style approach to the looming energy crisis. We don’t have time or energy (excuse the pun, sir) for non-sense. Please, don’t waste time. Immediately form a potent committee. This committee will be made up of a respected, unbiased group of scientists (you know..the ones you were making fun of back in school? The "nerd patrol"?? … Sorry, couldn’t help myself) selected from a respected group (NSF comes to mind) that can OBJECTIVELY evaluate the alternatives and make recommendations for the direction of federal spending for alternative fuels. In other words, these guys would make a reasonable guess at which way is the best for meeting the energy needs of Americans in the future. I truly and sincerely believe that the future of Americans and everyone else depends on the ' sound-ness ' of the energy related decisions that you make in the next two years.
OK. Im done with my rant. If you could, sir, please let me know if what I ask is ridiculous and unachievable considering the political realities of Washington D.C.. I am very curious to know why a rational energy policy can not be pursued.

Thanks for the time of day…and good luck with Iraq! (Honestly, no sarcasm intended..I mean it…)
Darian Adams, San Jose CA

So, despite his rather hubris-tic (is that a word???) response to WT, I have to say I have a warm spot in my heart for one who sticks so adamantly to rigor. My only comment to RR is: 'come on ma'brutha! Join the movement!!!'
OK, thats obnoxious enough.. Gotta say, though, the kids are behind tha both of ya's !!

The U.S. will succeed in cutting it's oil consumption significantly...even if oil production is flat for the next 30 years. We have already succeeded in cutting our oil consumption over the past 2 years. Good for us!

Actually, we had little to do with it. The Asian economies are cutting into our market share of oil consumption and will continue to do so. So even if oil production is flat, the U.S. will be getting less and less of a cut of it, whether we want it to happen or not. It is beyond our control at this point.

BTW: U.S. has increaded gasoling consumption of the past 2 years, but we have had a major cut in residual oil consumption which has offset the growth in gasoline. We are rapidly closing in on the end of this trade-off. It will be interesting what happens then.

We must keep the easy motoring party going as long as possible, and most of the people are still fooled by the ethanol scam.

No Manhattan here.

Maybe the best that will come out of this speech is that the talking heads will learn a little more and so general education about oil production and the problems ahead will improve.

But I doubt it. This is all just so much BS. It is too late and all this fiddling around is just that: fiddling.

I find it interesting that his 20% reduction by 2017 matches up with some predictions on peak oil esp one that would predict a peak around 2010.

I keep seeing things come from Bush hydrogen economy , ethanol now this that indicate actions you would take if you expect peak oil in the near future.

I don't see anything on increasing energy efficiency, yet another lost opportunity. It's interesting to put it beside the new Canadian energy action plan outlined here yesterday.

ecoENERGY Renewable Initiative
The investment of more than $1.5 billion in the ecoENERGY Renewable Initiative will boost Canada's renewable energy supplies. Incentives and industry support will be provided for low-impact renewable electricity generation and heating technologies. The ecoENERGY Renewable Initiative
is expected to add enough clean electricity to the grid to power one million homes, and to install solar heating in about 700 buildings and solar hot-water systems in several thousand homes.

ecoENERGY Efficiency Initiative
Approximately $300 million over the next four years will promote smarter energy use. The ecoENERGY Efficiency Initiative includes ecoENERGY Retrofit, providing financial support and information for energy retrofits in homes, as well as in small buildings and industries. ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses will support the construction and retrofit of more energy-efficient buildings and houses through information sharing, standard setting and related initiatives and training. ecoENERGY for Industry will accelerate energy-saving investments and the exchange of best-practice information within Canada's industrial sector.

ecoENERGY Technology Initiative
A $230-million investment in the ecoENERGY Technology Initiative will accelerate the development and market readiness of clean energy technologies. It will foster the next generation of clean technologies to break through to emissions-free energy production and use. The ecoENERGY Technology Initiative is a focused, integrated approach built on key priorities that include CO2 sequestration, clean coal, clean oil sands production and renewable energy.

And both these look a little thin compared to the EU's proposals .

The devil will be in the details.

From the white house site:

The President's proposal will also increase the scope of the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), expanding it to an Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS).

The Alternative Fuel Standard will include sources such as corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, butanol, hydrogen, and alternative fuels.

The increased standard will contain multiple "safety valves."

The EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy will have authority to waive or modify the standard if they deem it necessary, and the new fuel standard will include an automatic "safety valve" to protect against unforeseen increases in the prices of alternative fuels or their feedstocks.

My take: other "alternative fuels" means coal-to-liquids. And "Automatic Safety Valve" means elimination of the blenders credit when corn gets too high.

It is encouraging to see plug-ins and biodiesel make it into a SOTU address, as well as a mention of clean nuclear. Over here (Japan) the use of nuclear and biodiesel are central to the future energy policies.

People must remember that a SOTU is an address to Congress, and as such is tailored to meet that audience. Thus a president makes public things that elements of Congress find appealing, to build coalitions and push fence-sitting representitives and senators over to one side. Many people here and in advocacy groups may always be crying out for more, but I for one do not believe the DC establishment can makes changes too quickly - it takes time and persistance.

My only dissappointment is the lack of explicit talk of bringing back rail as an alternative to autos for commuting.

10% decline in oil consumption by 2017? That sounds like a reasonable description of peak oil!

I take a very sceptical position on the biofuel "debate":

Many various causes from climate change, fossil aquifer depletion, desertification, irrigation energy costs, fertiliser/pesticide costs, diesel costs etc but the trend is clear. A bit of a wild card and not totally unrelated is crashing ocean fish stocks, I forget the number but fish provide a really significant proportion of human protean.

Anyway, we face increased food demand and decreasing production capacity. This problem can be addressed to a certain degree though diet change (but certainly not fully mitigated and I'm sure plenty of poor people have to die before rich give up meat!) but this leaves the simple concept of increasing non-food use of agricultural capacity as a bad idea in my opinion. Making more efficient use of existing agriculture capacity is a great idea, liberating useful energy from waste products (if they truly are waste) is great but anything that replaces food capacity with energy capacity doesn't sound smart - no matter what the EROEI.

Hello TODers,

I am disappointed that Bush did not talk more about the North American natgas situation, and what he proposed to do about it. Conserving liquid fuels is much easier than finding an alternative infrastructure to our massive continental natgas spiderwebs.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Good Morning:

While the comment about cutting gasoline consumption being the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil imported from the Middle East is mathemayically correct, it plays upon our racism of "oil imported from the Middle East." It plays well to certain groups AND the more informed amongst us realize that this proposal is but a drop in the bucket.

So many questions. Is this a reduction from current use or is it some "planned" reference case value for 2017 from the EIA in it's energy annual? "Why" do we need it is a question not answered.

I could go on.

Several years ago, in a different venue, I hypothesized that Bush/Cheney, et al., knew the peak was coming and were hoping that, with the various liquids that might work to conceal the peak, the liquids peak would occur in the 2009-2011 time frame. Not on their watch. My guess was that they'd be wrong in this gamble. This year, and next, could prove to be very intereesting.

No Manhattan here. Timid steps by a mental midget.

Question: Will the 20 be achieved by diligence or enforced by geology? All those morons in Congress wouldn't know. Any euphoria that they feel if the target is met or exceeded may be trumped by the desperation brought on by the onset of declining production.

15 billion from corn...

USDA's preliminary estimate (the official estimate will not be released until May 12) puts the 2006 corn planted acreage at 80.5 million, down 1.3 million acres from 2005. Harvested acreage is forecast at 73.2 million or nearly 2 million acres below last year's. (src)

Assuming 328 gallons per acre of corn: 15 billion gallons= 45.7 million acres or 57% of the 2006 corn planted acreage!

By comparison, today we are producing ~10 kbpd of corn ethanol (i.e. 0.153 billion gallons per year= 0.47 million acres ~ 0.6% of the 2006 corn planted acreage).

Already corn for ethanol is forecasted to surpass exports by 2008:

Did Bush fail to mention Shale Oil because he didn't want the heat from environmentalists, its too long term, or because it is a boondoggle?

The Prez actually mentioned biodiesel before the dreaded Eword....a first I believe.

Bush called for consuming 20% less gasoline 10 years from now. He didn't mention the possibility of driving less.

When you make long term plans, you must consider population growth. The US grows at 0.91%/yr. Therefore, for the nation to consume 20% less, Americans of 2017 must consume 27% less PER CAPITA [1].

When you plan changes in fuel efficiency (CAFE standards), you must consider the 8% annual turnover in the vehicle fleet. If we sell improved cars from 2009-2017 (I'm allowing 2 years to develop the improvements), then by 2017 at most 64% of the fleet would be improved. To consume 27% less gasoline, the improvement in the new cars' mileage would have to be 42% [2].

Conclusion: to achieve Bush's 20% goal, vehicles produced from 2009 forward must consume 42% less gasoline, via a combination of efficiency and substituted fuels.

Math footnotes:
[1] 1-.8/(1.0091^10) = .269
[2] .36+.64x=1.27; x=1.42

all I can say is - lock in your nat gas supply. do it now. with bush's objectives for ethanol, nat gas is going thru the roof.

my prediction: we will have a more immediate and more painful hit from nat gas shortages than we will from oil

Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years -- thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

Let's do the math.

We import 17% of imported oil (13.2 mbpd) from the middle east.

17% of 13.2 mbpd = 2.24 mbpd

75% of 2.24 = 1.68 mbpd or 8% of our total current oil use.

It will be much less than that in 2017 as imports are projected to grow 1.7 %/year.

Sounds good, but the numbers are peanuts.

Most Americans don't know we import most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

Pure spin.

I am continuously bewildered that world population is not recognized as our primary problem. Peak Oil, climate change, receding water tables, etc. are merely derivative problems.

I have been doing energy arithmetic for over fifty years and the results were always grim. The shinning ray of hope was fusion energy, then projected as fifty years in the future. The latest estimate for fusion is “least fifty years, or more, if ever.”

Instead of the situation getting better, world population increases as if we were a bacterial culture. Until a thousand years ago we were a rare creature and there were never more than 300 million of us. All of a sudden there are 22 people where there had been one! Almost all of this growth was after we started using fossil fuels.

My arithmetic says that if we implement all the schemes proposed we will still fall short of solving the energy/CO2 problem. I have never seen any arithmetic to refute this conclusion by those who propose solutions. That is, unless, alas, world population is drastically reduced before collapse.

Folks,

I really wish to solve this:

Currently, we use 144 billion gallons of gas each year in the US.

At projected growth of 1.7%, we will consume around 170 billion in 2017.

They hope to cut 5% (8.5 billion)of that by CAFE standards and 15%(35 billion) from alt fuels.

However, their math doesn't square.

8.5 billion gallons is certainly 5% of the projected gas use in 2017.

But 35 billion gallons of Alt fuels is most certainly not 15% of 170.

It is 15% of 235 billion.

I know of no one who predicts we will consume 235 billion gallons of gasoline in 2017.

That's a 63% increase.

What gives?

Once again biodiesel from algae was left out. I guess algae lacks a political constituency. Algae is the only biomass source that not only could provide a 100% replacement for all fossil fuels but could also be carbon negative. Algae could use the vast acreage of the western US that the federal and state governments already own. Algae is tolerant of the brackish aquifers that make western land unuseable for agriculture.