Posted on 12/27/2007 7:25:46 AM PST by rhema
In this era of increasingly expensive energy and political-environmental polarization, if most Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree and then the President signs a bill, it must be a bowl of pablum laced with bad ideas. Which is a fair description of the new "energy bill" which will cost more only money and will do nothing for either energy independence or the environment. And in the highly unlikely case that it comes close to achieving its goals, it may do a lot more harm than good.
Many talked about the new fuel efficiency standards for car manufacturers and the gaping loopholes they contain. Let’s just consider the new “mandates” on biofuels, a bad idea of such magnitude it could only come from Congress.
First, Congress mandated that by 2022, biofuels will provide a total of 36 billion gallons per year. None of these fuels can ever make any market-based sense without government subsidies. Of the total, 15 billion will come from “conventional” biofuels -- read corn-based ethanol -- with all the often-reported impact on food prices, ground water and contamination of surface waters. The bill suggests that the share of these fuels, of the total transportation fuels, should increase from about 4% in 2008 (9 out of 220 billion gallons) to about 5.7% by 2022 (15 out of 260 billion gallons.)
Even if we forget the reduced energy output of burning ethanol (a gallon of ethanol produces only about 70% of the energy produced by a gallon of gasoline) what is actually astonishing is that most of the remaining 21 billion gallons will have to come from “cellulosic” biofuels and there is no technology in place or in the horizon to produce them. The mandate in the bill is not logically different from mandating that all children born in the United States from now on should grow to be 6 ft tall, because it would be better for them as adults. Some yet unknown technology may be able to do that.
Second, let’s address the “energy independence” issue. According to the Energy Information Administration forecast before this bill was signed, by 2022, the demand for conventional transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) will increase by more than 40 billion gallons from today, about twice as much as the mirage of cellulosic biofuels. America will still need to find oil supplies and if no drilling in ANWAR or offshore is allowed, importing is the only answer. So it may be that instead of importing 256 billion gallons, we will be importing 250 because of all the extra corn-based ethanol.
But then there is a third important issue and as usual, few have thought about it, China. I can understand environmentalists and ideologues ignoring this but where are the pragmatic geopoliticians?
By amazing coincidence, as the energy bill was signed, China’s CNPC think tank released their forecast for that country’s demand in all things energy (only until 2015, but enough for our purpose) and from there I gleaned their transportation fuel demand. Extrapolating to 2022 here is how it looks like:
China’s transportation fuel demand will grow from about 60 billion today to at least, 130 billion by 2022, a 70 billion gallon increase, almost twice the US increase.
Paying all that money to produce more corn-based ethanol and even more money to chase the elusive cellulosic biofuels is not just a subsidy to special agribusiness interests in the United States. It amounts to a subsidy for China, because it will allow that emerging superpower to seek oil resources unhindered and with diminished competition from the current reigning superpower.
Oil and energy resources in general have defined national power for more than a century with both World Wars and many regional conflicts having a direct link to them. The United States is poised to relinquish a large swath of power by giving China a by in the world of superpower competition. Such a voluntary giveaway is unprecedented in modern history.
And with all the above consider this fact: 21 billion gallons of biofuels that are unlikely to ever materialize are equivalent to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day, well within the most conservative estimates that the US can produce from ANWAR and a very modest increase in offshore oil leases within its own waters.
There are solutions to America’s transportation predicament, such as long-term electrification, but biofuels are not even close to being the answer.
Mr. Economides is editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune.
The author seems to think that common sense rules in Congress and just how strong the Farm Lobby is in our country.
Bio-diesel, OTOH, can serve very well here. Especially since Bio-diesel can be produced with feedstocks other than from food sources
ping
Not quite.
The author forgets that bill clinton gave the chicoms MIRV technology for their space program for a campaign contribution of $100,000. That technology had been paid for over some 40 years of US defense spending of some $20 trillion. That giveaway saved the chicoms 20 years or development and at least $20 trillion.
Bio-fuels is the Emperor’s New Clothes, IMO.
The work of several companies growing oil-laden algae on a large scale not only will produce diesel fuel, heating oil and possibly kerosone on a large scale, but the solid waste from the refining processing could be processed further into ethanol fuel. I think in the end, that’s how we will get biofuels—by refining it from certain types of algae.
This guy hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Our firm is working in this area, and I see almost a Marshall Plan of effort put forth by others, public and private.
“I think in the end, that’s how we will get biofuels—by refining it from certain types of algae.”
I suspect so as well -however, we just don’t want ot hear:
Soylent green is People.......!!!!!!!
:-)
Lots of people are already balderdashing everyday on the way to the bank.
I believe it is immoral to use food crops to make fuel as long as there are people going hungry in this world. Wait until the price of meat, breads, etc go up in this country; people will lose the love affair with grain-based biofuels.
The article is also wrong regarding China. Energy is a commodity. To the extent we drive alternatives to oil (such as biofuels) onto the market, energy prices will be lowered (or the rate of increase will be lowered). The lower energy prices will benefit both countries equally. But we will benefit relative to China because a substantial portion of the cost of energy will remain here (due to domestic biofuels) while China's money will go to Muslim idiots.
Well, if someone could figure out how to turn manure into fuel...D.C. could become the largest supplier of that...
I agree on electrification, disagree on biofuels (as a general catagory). Re: electrification - we should do what France has done, build enough nuclear plants to supply most of our electricity needs. Maybe we need 500 or 1,000 plants - well, then, let's get the process moving along. On autos, the short-term solution is diesel. The new clean diesels get the expected 25%-40% increased fuel economy over gasoline engines, and hybrid diesels in small cars could give well over 70 MPG. But long-term the solution is electric cars. That's a solution that cannot be mandated, but one the marketplace will make. Right now, dozens of large companies are pouring literally billions per year into developing this technology, and someday (maybe in 15 years or so) all-electric cars will be available at a reasonable price.
As to biofuels, the same thing applies - the marketplace will determine the winner. Subsidies are fine for getting a technology off the ground, but those subsidies must be looked at as an investment for the country that will pay off in terms of higher tax revenues later on (from profits, wages, R&D expenditures, etc.). Again, many dozens of large companies are pouring billions per year into this area, and someday we'll have algae producing biodiesel at a rate of 10,000 gallons per acre of DESERT. Ethanol production WILL become far more efficient and WILL use feedstocks besides corn or other foods.
The author is WAY too pessimistic about the technology. Given time and incentives (i.e. a promise of a big pot of gold at the end of the road), and damned near ANY technological problem can be solved. This "crisis" will leave the US and the West even further ahead of the Turd World than we are now.
Have you ever wondered why it is that one of the biggest problems facing farmers in this country is OVER production?
That's due to the fact that, generally, people get the government they deserve, and the resulting level of food production that goes with that government.
We live in a country whose Founding Fathers were God fearing, and as a result, we have been blessed by farmers who can produce way more food than we can possibly eat.
Other countries, from Haiti to Zimbabwe practice Voodoo, Witchcraft, and any number of heathen religions. They have the natural resources to produce more food than they can eat, but have they have chosen not to. They face starvation on a daily basis. By choice.
Let them follow the path of their choice, including starvation.
If we are going to force something on them, like food, the only moral thing to do is to also force on them the Coulter Foreign Aid Doctrine:
1. Invade their countries
2. Kill their leaders.
3. Convert them to Christianity
That’s the only kind thing to do.
Otherwise, let them starve.
That's old, old technology. Many municipalities have had generators running off of methane gas for years. Plus, new technology is turning turkey manure into oil.
“The author is WAY too pessimistic about the technology. Given time and incentives (i.e. a promise of a big pot of gold at the end of the road), and damned near ANY technological problem can be solved. This “crisis” will leave the US and the West even further ahead of the Turd World than we are now.”
Roger that.
Just my standard Mk 1 Mod 0 idea of a simple solution yet........Start drilling in the US and it’s territorial waters now, build 12 new refineries and nuclear power plants in each of Nixon’s nine regions and the bio-ehtanol problem is moot for 200 more years or so.
Plenty of time for some gadgeteer geekinest to solve the problem and bring it to a viable and real form of usable cheap energy that will work with what we use vs making everyone stand in line for watered down corn squeezins etc etc .....
Common denominator blocking all the above ?
EPA paperwork dam......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.