Here are excerpts from a Bloomberg article today:

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. is placing a ``big bet''by planning to rely on cellulosic ethanol to meet fuel needs, said Keith Collins, who is retiring in January after 15 years as the chief economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

President George W. Bush yesterday signed an energy bill that boosts the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol from 7.5 billion gallons this year to 36 billion in 2022.
About 20 billion of those gallons would need to come from
wood chips, crop waste and forms of the biofuel not made from corn, the predominant ethanol source in the U.S., Collins said today in an interview. Cellulosic plants have not been proven on a commercial scale, Collins said, making the energy plan ``an incredibly bold piece of legislation.''
``If we build 50-million gallon cellulosic ethanol plants,
which are actually bigger than some of the ones we have under construction right now, we would have to build 400 plants to meet that demand,'' he said. This construction would need to take place ``after this technology is proven to be economically feasible, which it hasn't been.''

......
As chief economist since 1992, Collins has been
responsible for all data gathered by the USDA, which is the
fourth-largest U.S. Cabinet department, with a roughly $100
billion budget and 110,000 employees.

Put a strong magnet next to one of those curly lights, while it's on, dare ya.

From the Bill (pg 798)

(7) RENEWABLE ENERGY.—The term ‘renewable energy’ means electric energy generated by a renewable energy resource.

(8) RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCE.—The term ‘renewable energy resource’ means solar, wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal energy, biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, or hydrokinetic energy.

Other than requiring Federal buildings to use more renewable energy where available, and putting some money towards R&D for solar and geothermal, there is nothing for renewables. No 15%RPS. No tax credits. No-thing.

That will have to wait for another bill, and another Congress. Certainly another President.

So as of 2 weeks ago 300 GW of power from renewable sources (half from wind) was slated to be built in the US. We'll see in a few weeks to months what the number becomes, now that the tax provisions are gone.

Oh, and the tax provisions provided under Bush for the oil/gas industries, they're still there, rest well.

I thought halogens were as energy hungry as tungsten. Am I missing something?! Frankly, I am concerned about the heavy metals and the greenhouse gas fluorides being used within fluorescent light bulbs (and lead I believe) when used on a massive scale. LED's seem the most sustainable option, but even these have nasty chemicals within.

Whilst I reckon its great to ban the old type of bulbs (use them myself) and reckon delay would be daft, has there been a systematic analysis of the environmental impact of this policy? Implications for recycling/disposal, changes needed to avoid pollution at end of use (possibly in terms of product standards) and the seepage of fluorides into the atmosphere over their lifetime, how to ensure that manufacturers don't build in obsolescence as they do with so many products, the issue of poor quality bulbs imported from places like China, issues of manufacture and raw material extraction on the environment and in mining countries.

My town switched it's Christmas display lights from regular christmas bulbs to all LED. the new lights cost $1,000. the electricity bill each year was $2,000. Two-thousand dollars! the new electricity bill is less than $50. they did it as a combination of trying to combat global warming and saving money. they are saving alot of carbon emissions. global warming might be Peak Oil's best friend. this just shows what we can do now and how we're already preparing for peak oil. maybe kunstler's book should be called The Long Transition? the transition is already starting(in part due to global warming), not to mention the infrastructure we already have like rails and canals. the Erie Canal is mostly used right now for recreation.

I beleive the current generation of CFLs only have a few milligrams of mercury in them. Compared to the hundreds of pounds of coal not burned (per bulb) that is actually small potatoes. This doesn't mean you shouldn't recycle them. I take mine to OrchardSupply, and they give me discount coupons for new bulbs. I think most hardware, and home supply stores will take in your old bulbs.

I woulda prefered a tax on the old bulbs, cross subsidizing the new efficient ones. The older bulbs probably still make sense in applications where they are very rarely on (like say the broom closet). LEDs are still a bit pricy, they are the natural choice for low power applications (automotive, flashlights, etc.), and locations where bulbs are hard to replace. Prices are coming down, it is quite likely that the CFL you buy today will be replaced when it fails by a LED.

Don't count tungsten out completely. There is research in changing the crystalline structure of tungsten, so it emits mostly in the visable range. If that can be pulled off, thermal emission could be very efficient.

Ethanol = a net loss of energy, a waste of natural gas and oil, a waste of food, depleted soil, increased CO2, and pollution of various sorts. It is not a green option.
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

Chris Shaw: "In the (alas, too few) years to come, we will see great argument over the proper allocation of dwindling oil reserves. It will be realised that other sources of energy cannot deliver sufficient surpluses to replace the potent portable energy we know as gasoline and diesel. It is not generally understood that poorer quality energy sources can be critically dependent on oil for their extraction, processing and distribution. In other words, oil is the precursor for other sources of energy; gas, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, because these require oil fuel to create and maintain infrastructure. It also gives them the illusion of being profitable."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3837

I actually don't like the fact that Bush signed the bill. He is certainly in a position to know more about the worlds energy supply than we are. Its now a pretty sure bet that KSA is full of crap.

Leanan -

The pdf link for H.R. 6 is the House energy bill, but not the one passed by the Senate or signed into law by the monkey at the top of the heap.

So at the least, ignore pgs 794 and onward of the pdf, you know, the one establishing a 15% RPS, and provide tax credits for solar and wind.

The GPO has not apparently printed the law online yet.

Mexico, the third largest importer to the USA has passed peak and well before 2020 will be exporting zero to the USA. Add in the continuation of the decline in domestic US production, the probability that Saudi, has or will peak imminently, then by 2020 mileage efficiency will be inconsequential, especially considering the long period of time that older cars stay on the road. And don't forget the continuing deterioration of EROEI at 3.5% per annum. We will be exceptionally lucky if we have half the oil to use in 2020 as compared to today.

As far as corn ethanol, what I have seen is it only returns at best 6% on energy invested whereas oil returns currently 500%. That means that for every 500 vehicles on the road now, by substituting ethanol, we can keep 6 of them running. Whoop-tee-do! And wood chips to ethanol; even if this dreamed of technology can be worked out will it even produce a 6% return.

Anyone, who thinks this is anything but another Katrina like performance by the incompetent institution we call government, is living in an advanced state of denial. So more of the valuable remaining resources go down the drain which just might have otherwise found their way into some free market solution, or at least remained in the pockets of those plundered by the government taxes and inflation so as to go toward personal solutions.

You have just been delivered a yet another placebo sugar pill so I suppose maybe some of you will imagine the disease has been cured. For the rest of us maybe we can manage to laugh at the absurdity of it all, that is, as an alternative to crying.

Please don't write your representative, it will only encourage them to make an even bigger mess.

Henry:
I think you overstate the severity of the situation. That is not to say that the bill isn't grossly inadequate to the task. Your outrage is justified. Nearly everyone one on this site believes that only very aggressive action can mitigate the damage to come. If we are not at peak, but at the beginning of a 10-20year plataeu, as I think is more likely we can probably skate by. Of course the percentage of world GDP and wealth in this country will be in steaper decline than it would have been the case is we had had real leadership. But then thats what happens to a species which is less intellifgent than yeast!

people say the grid can't support EVs or PHEVs. suppose we did charge a lot of cars during the day. this would cause electricity prices to rise and spark conservation. if I need to use electricity and it's expensive I will unplug my fridge, my electricity guzzling plasma tv and anything else to charge up my car inexpensively for a few hours. if I car pooled(highly likely in a PO scenario) a Prius full with passengers(who kick in gas or barter with food from a PO garden to help me out) gets 236 mpg. an EV1 at max occupancy gets(or got) 400 mpg.

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

I cannot understand why my Congressman, Brian Bilbray of the 50th district of California, voted against the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. I had sent him an email requesting that he support this legislation, and he replied back, "I am a lifelong San Diegan, and an avid outdoorsman, and I understand and appreciate the relationship and impact we have with the environment. That is why I joined 39 of my colleagues in asking for a vote on the House floor to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards." This seem very supportive of the legislation, but when I checked the record, he voted against the bill.

So I sent Mr. Bilbray another email asking him why he didn't vote for the bill. He reminded me, "I believe it is critical that we give our troops the support and resources they need while defending our freedom and liberty around the globe. They can help us prevail in the Global War on Terror, but only if we do not fail them here at home." I think that he's saying that improving automobile fuel economy somehow messes up the whole war on terrorism thing.

I guess we got what we deserved. The previous congressman for the 50th district, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was convicted of being a crook is in now in prison. To replace him, we elected Brian Bilbray, a former lobbyist.

If you'd like a more detailed overview of the specifics of the bill, you can find it here:

http://invisiblegreenhand.blogspot.com/2007/12/energy-act-overview.html

I've now replaced all our lights with energy savers. Does anyone know if compact fluorescent bulbs contain a mercury charge to get them to ignite? There was a satirical piece on TV the other day about how to dispose of one should it break. But no one mentioned mercury - Hg.

THE CERA OF PEAK OIL?

Up the page on this string, cjwirth posted a link:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

Given some of the horrific claims about the future that cjwirth was making concerning peak oil and it's consequences, I thought I should go over and see what this "Peakoilassociates" group was about.

Who is this group? I went to the "About us" tab, and here is what I read:

"We are a group of professionals with diverse backgrounds in academics, energy policy, oil industry, engineering, electric utilities, economic development, applied policy analysis, environmental science, and local, state, and federal government. We are experienced in practical problem-solving, contingency planning, and risk management. We confer with each other on a regular basis to provide the best research and advice for individuals and organizations regarding Peak Oil. We are dedicated to advising individuals and organizations on how to best handle the challenges of Peak Oil."

Well, what more would I need to know? Of course, some names may have been helpful, or perhaps some discussion of exactly what firms or universities these people had a history with in "academics, energy policy, oil industry, engineering, electric utilities, economic development, applied policy analysis, environmental science, and local, state, and federal government" would have given us an idea as to who these folks were....(?)
(It must be said that C J Wirth's own bio on his profile here at TOD is much more inclusive than anything on the "Peak Oil Associates" site, but I was attempting to judge by the site itself, to be fair to anyone who came to it without knowing it's association to Mr. Wirth)

Nothing to do but nose around some more....

The "services" tab was very interesting. This organization provides services!
The first service listed is "Presentations", described as "We give talks, presentations, and speeches on Peak Oil for colleges and universities, businesses, religious organizations, governments, associations, groups, and families. We will tailor presentations to a particular interest."

Also listed as "services" are "Individual Consultation", "Governments and Associations", and advice on "Relocation". Under Individual Consultation we are warned,
"There is much bad advice available about planning for Peak Oil."
Indeed.

At the bottom of the list of "services" we find the most interesting link, called "fees".
"We charge $100.00 per hour ($1.67 per minute) for telephone consultations. General presentations and all day consultations are charged at $1,000.00 per day plus travel expenses. Presentations requiring special research are charged additionally for research at $100.00 per hour. Research, relocations research, and special studies are charged at $100.00 per hour. Relocation arrangements are contracted. We bill by email and accept payment by personal or business check."

Well, granted it's not nearly as much as CERA gets, but then so far I had not seen any names that could measure up to the stature of a Danial Yergin.
On the other hand, I had not seen any names at all.

So I clicked on the"contacts" tab, and found the name of one Clifford Wirth.
So far, the only name I have yet found associated with "Peak Oil Associates".

Now of course, I am not faulting self promotion, several folks here often link back to their own sites, but of course they usually tell us that the site they are sending us to is theirs. And even the stars of the TOD boards such as Robert Rapier and Stuart Staniford or Gail the Actuary do not give us a "fee structure".

So exactly what does the Peak Oil Associates think is going to happen? What are their predictions, their "scenarios"? I can recommend you to no better source than their "Peak Oil Report" which can be downloaded at the site. It is a remarkable collection of statistics and charts. And well it should be....the report is basically a collection of the charts, sources and statistics that have been put forth right here on TOD, free of charge! (Fascinating, considering that Mr. Wirth has been registered here for only 12 weeks)

I mean no insult....I downloaded the report myself. It contains no new information, but it is a great storage place for the collection of the worst case scenarios (but the best charts) that have been posted right here on TOD over the last couple of years.

And I wish Mr. Wirth the best of luck in the rapidly growing cottage industry of "Peak Oil doomerism"....who knows, he may someday be collecting corporate and government money by making presentations, if he were to believe that money would be worth anything in the collapsing world, and that there would be any chance of either governments or corporations surviving. Either way, the dollar may be weak, but Mr. Wirth, like Mr. Yergin, is not turning them down! :-)

RC

It often seems that discussions over legislation like the one in question devolve into arguments over previously held positions of ideology or political part affiliation. TOD can be quite susceptible to this too. It is not unusual to hear about the (so called) evil Bush/Cheney oil men connection, or general slurs towards Republicans (and on other blogs one can hear the opposite, etc.)

Because biofuels play an important role in this 2007 Energy legislation I thought it interesting to do the following analysis:

Corn production by state, as found here:
http://www.corn.org/uscprod.htm

We see that the following states (in order of 2006 production, with percentage of total production) ranked in corn:

Iowa 19%
Illinois 17%
Nebraska 11%
Minnesota 10%
Indiana 8%
Ohio 4%
Wisconsin 4%
Missouri 3%
Kansas 3%
South Dakota 3%

The big 5 corn states produced 6,993,060,000 bushels of corn in 2006, or 66% of the total (note: due to rounding in the individual state calculations the summations differ.)

The second tier of 5 states produced a total of 1,891,320,000 bushels of corn in 2006, or 18% of the total. So the top 10 states produce most of the corn in the US. (Also note that from 2004 to 2006 the SD corn crop decreased substantially, by almost 50%. Corn production is variable.)

So now that we know the important corn states, let's look at their political representation in that most august of democratic bodies on Earth, the US Senate.

Here are the senators from the "Big 5" corn states, in alphabetical order (with party affiliation): Bayh (D), Coleman (R), Durbin(D), Grassly (R), Hagel (R), Harkin (D), Klobuchar (D), Lugar(R), Nelson(D), Obama (D). So, 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans. We'll label this group the "B5S".

Here are the senators from the second tier corn states: Bond (R), Brown (D), Brownback(R), Feingold (D), Johnson(D), Kohl (D), McCaskill(D), Roberts (R), Thune (R), Voinovich (R). So 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

In the 10 states the D/R balance is just slightly tilted more toward the D side than the overall Senate. Let's call this total group of 20 senators the "corn senators", or "CoS" for short.

Let's see how this group did in voting for what Energy Security Act of 2007, following the action from July of this year:

On the June vote on passage (this of course before including the changes need to work with the House and the President):
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Overall: Yea 65, Nay 27
B5S: Y 9, N 1
CoS: Y 13, N 4, A 3 (= absent or not voting)
Almost unanimous support from the B5S.

On the Dec 7 vote for cloture:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Overall: Y 53, N 42
B5S: Y 5, N 5
CoS: Y 11, N 9

On the Dec 12 vote on amendments:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Overall: Y 14, N 79
B5S: Y 0, N 9, A 1
CoS: Y 1, N 18, A 1

On the Dec 13 cloture vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Overall: Y 59, N 40
B5S: Y 9, N 1
CoS: Y 15, N 5

And finally, on the evening of Dec 13, on the motion to agree to the amendments:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Overall: Y 86, N 8
B5S: Y 8, N 0, A 2
CoS: Y 18, N 0, A2

It is pretty evident to see that the B5S moved as a group, especially in the beginning and the end, and note that not one of the CoS dared to vote no on what would finally be heading towards law.

They dared not to. Like it or not, energy legislation in the US, in the contemporary era, is also simultaneously agriculture legislation. It is not a matter of party politics.

Note that in parallel on the Senate calendar during December has been Agriculture legislation. In parallel with the Energy act was the Farm, Nutrition, and Boioenergy Act of 2007 (HR 2419). Votes were held on Dec 13 and Dec 14:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

I don't know whether to consider it just irony, or some cruel comic tragedy, but in HR 2419 amendments are the scheduled payments for agriculture subsidies... here is what the text has in section 1104 (c)(1) for the target price (from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110mOJk3h:e67758:)

(1) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of each of the 2008 through 2012 crop years, the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows:
    (A) Wheat, $4.20 per bushel.
    (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel.
[...]

So, while they were voting in the larger Energy act to implement policies that for certain would take grains to new price highs (note market wheat at over $10 this week), in the Farm and Nutrition bill they have "targets" that would indicated grain prices ought to be less!

The absurdity of it all...

"All politics are local", or something along that line, said Tip O'neill. The Energy Security act of 2007 demonstrates that.

In looking over the amendments as they were finally approved by the Senate (see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:S15477 for the portions finally approved for the bill ), this caught my eye:

SEC. 136. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

[...]
(b) Advanced Vehicles Manufacturing Facility.--The Secretary shall provide facility funding awards under this section to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers to pay not more than 30 percent of the cost of--

(1) reequipping, expanding, or establishing a manufacturing facility in the United States to produce--

(A) qualifying advanced technology vehicles; or

(B) qualifying components; and

(2) engineering integration performed in the United States of qualifying vehicles and qualifying components.

[...]
(d) Direct Loan Program.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and subject to the availability of appropriated funds, the Secretary shall carry out a program to provide a total of not more than $25,000,000,000 in loans to eligible individuals and entities (as determined by the Secretary) for the costs of activities described in subsection (b).
[...]

$25 billion in loans to GM, Ford, Chrysler... The Michigan delegation must be happy, no?

I have been using fluorescent lights to save energy since 1969. It is odd that it has taken this long for the country as a whole to adopt more efficient lighting in a big way. However, as they say, better late than never. By the way, I am quite impressed with the new "LED" Christmas lights out today. They use micro-power, are good for solar or wind systems and last almost forever. The thing I dislike about the recent legeslation is the removal of tax credits for alternative energy, i.e. solar panels, etc. That move seems odd, too.
D. Draffen

Someday, if there are still any historians around to write any history books, this will become known as "The Too-Little, Too-Late Energy Bill of 2007".

Maybe ethanol from cellulose would be a good way to get something useful out of all the mountains of paper that are issued from Washington.

Heh. I think this is sort of funny. It seems the energy bill was delivered to the president (do I have to capitalize?) for his signature in a plug-in Prius. Appears it pissed off a couple of Republicans from Detroit. Does make me wonder why it had to be driven and not sent electronically.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/21/america/NA-GEN-US-Energy-Bill-...

The Energy Bill, now law, is now available as pdf here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills...

or in html here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:8:./temp/~c110NAYxUI::

This section is worth noting, EVs running off electricity from renewable energy sources (don't get excited yet, it's just a study):

SEC. 206. STUDY OF CREDITS FOR USE OF RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

(a) DEFINITION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE.—In this section, the term ‘‘electric vehicle’’ means an electric motor vehicle (as defined in section 601 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13271))for which the rechargeable storage battery— (1) receives a charge directly from a source of electric current that is external to the vehicle; and (2) provides a minimum of 80 percent of the motive power of the vehicle.

(b) STUDY.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct a study on the feasibility of issuing credits under the program established under section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act to electric vehicles powered by electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House of Representatives a report that describes the results of the study, including a description of—
(1) existing programs and studies on the use of renewable electricity as a means of powering electric vehicles; and
(2) alternatives for—
(A) designing a pilot program to determine the feasibility of using renewable electricity to power electric vehicles as an adjunct to a renewable fuels mandate;
(B) allowing the use, under the pilot program designed under subparagraph (A), of electricity generated from nuclear energy as an additional source of supply;
(C) identifying the source of electricity used to power electric vehicles; and
(D) equating specific quantities of electricity to quantities of renewable fuel under section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act.

...using electricity ...as an adjunct to a renewable fuels mandate? Gosh, what a concept. How about as a replacement of renewable fuels? How about renewable energy support?

Is hemp the ideal plant to derive cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel from in the United States?

At home here in the UK, I have about 2.5kW total of incandencent light bulbs around the house. These of course tend to be switched on more in winter than summer, and they provide, as a by-product, about 15% of my winter heating.

If I replaced them with low-wattage bulbs, I would simply use correspondingly more natural gas for heating.

The main argument for low energy lighting seems to fall over in the UK, given that much of the touted energy saving will simply be taken up by increased gas (or, to a lesser extent, electricity) usage for heating.

We produce a substantial (and increasing) proportion of our electricity from natural gas, which, in part at least, is then used for domestic heating - viz. by incandescent light bulbs, as well as conventional electric heaters. This is very inefficient in comparison to burning the gas at the point of use.

Forcing a change away from incandescent bulbs appears to me to be not so much an energy conservation measure, but more one of reducing valuable natural gas usage for electricity generation.