News Can Obama Achieve Oil Independence?

[Ivan Seeking]

wind - low total amount of power available. Unreliable, if you want to only be able to watch DanceIdolGladiator when the wind is blowing it's fine

The US has large areas in which wind power is competitive - much it lies right in the middle of the country. In fact it turns out to be one of our greatest resources. It could provide something like 20% of our electrical power.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp

T. Boone Pickens is working to exploit this power and replace natural gas powered generating stations. The natural gas would then be directed for use in vehicles. Turns out that NG powered cars are a nice option. And btw, we have lots of NG as well.

solar - expensive, not much use at night. Only good for the desert bits where nobody lives. Might be useful on a very local scale, ie solar panel on your roof powers your AC directly.

Again, already competitive in solar-friendly areas. It is important to realize that there is no magic bullet. The final solution will consist of many solutions; each where it is appropriate. In California alone, solar panels can easily be seen dotting roofs from San Diego the Oregon border.

biofuels - you need to grow a lot of stuff to get a few gallons of fuel. With highly mechanised farming it's not clear you won't use more gas running tractors, harvesters etc than you get back.

There are many different biofuel options in development. Having a minimum of about 12 times the yield per acre-year compared to corn for ethanol, algae has become a focal point of the biofuels industry for the production of biodiesel; as well as for Hydrogen and ethanol production. Biocrude is another area of interest. But it is tough to beat the conversion efficiency of algae.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

I think everyone now realizes that corn-ethanol is a losing proposition.

 

[mheslep]

What number and indexed according to what point in time? I was using the numbers from last summer.

I donno. Maybe $35/bbl?

 

[russ_watters]

Why is this the only way it can be done? What are the shortcomings where wind, solar power and biofuels are involved?

They are expensive and they don't produce enough energy. If you look around, you'll find articles from enviro-types excited about the rapid growth rate of renewables, but if you read the numbers, you'll see that even with the rapid growth, they still only make up a miniscule fraction of our energy usage. To put some numbers to it: getting us off coal would require an additional ~500 nuclear plants (mult-reactor) or somewhere around a million wind turbines.

And wind is the best of the renewables - it is the closest to cost competitive and has the most potential for growth over the next 20 or 30 years unless there is a major breakthrough with solar. But it will never account for more than 20% of our power.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I like the idea of increasing the cost of oil/gasoline -- it encourages people to find substitutes and reflects the true geopolitical cost of oil. But a price floor is the wrong way to go about it: although the consumption would drop* as expected, the surplus would effectively go to the oil companies (depending on how you do it, either the OPEC member states or a split between them and the oil refineries). A better method would recoup some amount of the price increase as government revenue.

* The drop in demand for gasoline would be gradual, in all likelihood, as people adjust. Choosing one's job/apartment/house appropriately is difficult, and buying a new car might be 3-10+ years between.

 

[The Dagda]

I like the idea of increasing the cost of oil/gasoline -- it encourages people to find substitutes and reflects the true geopolitical cost of oil. But a price floor is the wrong way to go about it: although the consumption would drop* as expected, the surplus would effectively go to the oil companies (depending on how you do it, either the OPEC member states or a split between them and the oil refineries). A better method would recoup some amount of the price increase as government revenue.

* The drop in demand for gasoline would be gradual, in all likelihood, as people adjust. Choosing one's job/apartment/house appropriately is difficult, and buying a new car might be 3-10+ years between.

You may like that idea but a fair number of businesses and or ordinary consumers probably would throw a fit. It stuns me that a country so reliant on oil values it so lightly. I mean your gas prices are ludicrous anyway, but heaven forbid they go above $4 and everyone panics. Last time our prices were that low was back in the 80's. So you'll pardon me if I don't care all that much about 3 or $4 per gallon.

 

[mgb_phys]

I think everyone now realizes that corn-ethanol is a losing proposition.

Except the farmers that want to continue receiving subsidies and keep food prices high and the politicians from farming states that want to keep the pork flowing.

Natural gas (and LPG) should definitely be reserved for vehicles and direct home heating, the trouble with many eco power schemes is that their unreliability of supply means they need to be backed by quick response gas stations. I don't know if it is going to take a major change such as a market for hydrogen to make wind power economical.

The main aim of the oil Independence goal has to be to change people's thinking. Since the 1950s the philosophy has been that to consume is patriotic - that needs to change to a war on waste mentality.

 

[Astronuc]

The simple concept of making renewable energy cost-competitive with fossil fuel energy has driven eSolar to engineer a paradigm shift in CSP technology, providing a cost-effective and scalable solution. eSolar builds an individual 46 MW power unit on 160 acres (64 hectares) and can scale up to 500 MW or larger capacity with multiple units.
. . . .

The simple concept of making renewable energy cost-competitive with fossil fuel energy has driven eSolar to engineer a paradigm shift in CSP technology, providing a cost-effective and scalable solution. eSolar builds an individual 46 MW power unit on 160 acres (64 hectares) and can scale up to 500 MW or larger capacity with multiple units.

www.esolar.com - this is a company to watch. A former classmate works at eSolar, and they have a plant under construction.

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=62580616.3427395.1716416.8134984.4143444.938&aID2=132023

The California Public Utilities Commission approved the 20-year contract between Rosemead-based Edison and eSolar Inc., a Pasadena-based renewable energy start-up financed by Google.org, Idealab and Oak Investment Partners. The contract calls for Edison to purchase up to 245 megawatts of electricity from solar power plants built by eSolar in the northern Antelope Valley.
. . . .
The first of these solar power plants is set to come online in early 2012.

Then there is Byogy - http://www.byogy.com/

Byogy Renewables, Inc. manufactures high-octane gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels from biomass sources like municipal & farm wastes and dedicated non-food energy crops, and does this at much lower costs than current prices for crude oil.

Byogy uses a new game-changing biofuels technology that has been in development at Texas A&M University since 1992. After securing an exclusive world-wide license to this technology, Byogy is now strategically positioned to accelerate the industrial-scale commercialization of this innovative and integrated closed-loop process.

. . . .

The next step is a solar-powered biomass conversion plant.

 

[phyzmatix]

www.esolar.com - this is a company to watch. A former classmate works at eSolar, and they have a plant under construction.

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=62580616.3427395.1716416.8134984.4143444.938&aID2=132023



Then there is Byogy - http://www.byogy.com/


The next step is a solar-powered biomass conversion plant.

Fascinating! Thank you Astronuc!

 

[phyzmatix]

Query:

The contract calls for Edison to purchase up to 245 megawatts of electricity from solar power plants built by eSolar in the northern Antelope Valley.

Just how much is 245 MW of electricity exactly?

 

[mgb_phys]

1/3 of a typical single reactor, 1/10 of a large coal fired station
An average American uses around 15,000KWHr/year = 1.7KW continually so that's enough for around 150,000 residential customers.

 

[Astronuc]

Most modern NPPs put out about 1100 MWe. Some older plants have been uprated. The modern EPR is scheduled for 1600-1700 MWe.

Many plants have 2 or more reactors, and most sites, even those with one reactor were designed for 2 or more reactors (about 100 reactors were canceled in the late 70's or early 80's) in the US.

It used to the convention that a single 1 GWe plant would serve 1 million customers, but they would not all need power at the same time. Now it's more like 500,000 customers for a 1 GWe plant, or an average of 2 kWe per customer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You may like that idea but a fair number of businesses and or ordinary consumers probably would throw a fit.

No kidding, it would be political suicide to propose a high tax on gasoline (or crude, etc.). But I can think it's a good idea even if it's politically infeasible.

 

[The Dagda]

No kidding, it would be political suicide to propose a high tax on gasoline (or crude, etc.). But I can think it's a good idea even if it's politically infeasible.

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

 

[drankin]

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

I'm curious as well. The UK is taxed heavily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax#United_Kingdom".

 

[mgb_phys]

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

Because to be a real man you have to drive a V8 truck. It's your right as an American to consume resources as fast as you can - thet's what your grandpappy killed all them injuns for ...


Sorry, sorry couldn't resist

 

[The Dagda]

Because to be a real man you have to drive a V8 truck. It's your right as an American to consume resources as fast as you can - thet's what your grandpappy killed all them injuns for ...


Sorry, sorry couldn't resist

O...K.

 

[drankin]

Because to be a real man you have to drive a V8 truck. It's your right as an American to consume resources as fast as you can - thet's what your grandpappy killed all them injuns for ...


Sorry, sorry couldn't resist

I like my V8 truck. It has served me well hauling furniture/equipment/tools, towing, pulling other vehicles out of ditches, pulling trees out of my yard, driving thru deep snow and rugged terrain. I could not do most of those things with anything smaller. I can certainly accomplish more with a 5.3ltr V8 pickup truck.

 

[The Dagda]

I like my V8 truck. It has served me well hauling furniture/equipment/tools, towing, pulling other vehicles out of ditches, pulling trees out of my yard, driving thru deep snow and rugged terrain. I could not do most of those things with anything smaller. I can certainly accomplish more with a 5.3ltr V8 pickup truck.

We have Ford transits over here, they aren't as quick and they are usually diesel but they do a good job of hefting stuff around.

Still your ancestors didn't fight and die to keep the US free of the savage so you could drive a van.

 

[drankin]

We have Ford transits over here, they aren't as quick and they are usually diesel but they do a good job of hefting stuff around.

Still your ancestors didn't fight and die to keep the US free of the savage so you could drive a van.

Nor did they did they fight and die so that I couldn't. Most (not all) of us who own a truck, use it as a truck. I had never really thought about it before but because of all the truck owners in America, we are very self-sufficient. Most people at least have a friend with a truck they can call on when they need to move something heavy, or tow a broke down vehicle from the side of the road, among a meriad of other things that otherwise could not be handled without hiring someone.

 

[mgb_phys]

I like my V8 truck. It has served me well hauling furniture/equipment/tools, towing, pulling other vehicles out of ditches, pulling trees out of my yard, driving thru deep snow and rugged terrain. I could not do most of those things with anything smaller. I can certainly accomplish more with a 5.3ltr V8 pickup truck.

But to you it's a tool, like a hunting rifle or a chainsaw.
You wouldn't buy the same truck to sit in a commute traffic jam in Houston for hours just so that you could think you are a real man - even though you work in invoicing.

 

[mheslep]

Obviously, but I wonder why US oil prices are so low anyway? I mean I doubt there are many countries in the West that sell fuel so cheaply?

I'm curious as well. The UK is taxed heavily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax#United_Kingdom".

Because the US is big dam country. We don't all live in small, quaint 1000 year old villages. It requires energy to get around the US. Canada's even worse in energy per capita because it also is a big dam country. A very high tax on gasoline will hurt people who rely on having relatively cheap means to travel to/from work out in the heartland. The gas need not be dirt cheap though, that is why I thought a floor might work.

 

[mgb_phys]

Because the US is big dam country. We don't all live in small, quaint 1000 year old villages.

That's only part of the answer - Europe (considered as a country) is larger, people don't commute from Madrid to Warsaw anymore then they drive from New York to LA regularly.

There is a problem with increasing gas prices now because much of the infrastructure of the last 50years has been based on very cheap fuel costs, and cheap energy in general.
That means cities are spread out with huge suburbs and very little mass transit. Houses and offices have been built with poor insulation standards and low efficiency appliances.

Areas of the country that would be uninhabitable without air condition now have millions of people living in them (Houston uses 4x as much energy/person as New York)

So it's not as simple as just raising gas to European prices and expecting everyone to bicycle - even if sufficient mass transit could be built tomorrow. But there does need to be an attitude change that sees fuel use as undesirable in the same way as littering or pollution.

 

[signerror]

What is interesting about Germany is that they are currently 20% nuclear, but have vowed to get completely off it by 2020. So they have an enormous amount of work to do to make up that 20% in the next 11 years - and no viable way to do it. So assuming they stick to the plan to eliminate their nuclear power, they'll either build more coal plants, build more natural gas plants, or buy the extra power from France's nuclear plants... with a very small fraction of the power being provided by their own renewable sources. The net effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
And that will only get worse.

Indeed, it is coal: 25 gigawatts are already planned.

German Energy Policy At The Crossroads (Der Spiegel)

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,928803,00.jpg

 

[signerror]

Why is this the only way it can be done? What are the shortcomings where wind, solar power and biofuels are involved?

With wind and solar, extreme costs as well as intermittency. With biofuels, no major shortcomings; however the current corn ethanol technology in the US is very energy-intensive and no better than gasoline in CO2 emissions.

 

[The Dagda]

Because the US is big dam country. We don't all live in small, quaint 1000 year old villages. It requires energy to get around the US. Canada's even worse in energy per capita because it also is a big dam country. A very high tax on gasoline will hurt people who rely on having relatively cheap means to travel to/from work out in the heartland. The gas need not be dirt cheap though, that is why I thought a floor might work.

I'm not getting at anyone, it was a genuine question. Of course Russia doesn't have this problem so is that really all?

Giving businesses a tax break on the fuel might be an idea? Whilst slowly increasing the price of oil? Of course atm it's not practical but it might be an idea; no one expects your fuel prices to come into line with Europe though.

That's only part of the answer - Europe (considered as a country) is larger, people don't commute from Madrid to Warsaw anymore then they drive from New York to LA regularly.

There is a problem with increasing gas prices now because much of the infrastructure of the last 50years has been based on very cheap fuel costs, and cheap energy in general.
That means cities are spread out with huge suburbs and very little mass transit. Houses and offices have been built with poor insulation standards and low efficiency appliances.

Areas of the country that would be uninhabitable without air condition now have millions of people living in them (Houston uses 4x as much energy/person as New York)

So it's not as simple as just raising gas to European prices and expecting everyone to bicycle - even if sufficient mass transit could be built tomorrow. But there does need to be an attitude change that sees fuel use as undesirable in the same way as littering or pollution.

I agree with the above.

 

[mheslep]

That's only part of the answer - Europe (considered as a country) is larger, people don't commute from Madrid to Warsaw anymore then they drive from New York to LA regularly.

Some people do commute from NY to LA regularly. Visit Texas sometime. Distance E to W across Texas (El Paso to Beumont) = distance from Chicago, Il to the NE Texas. And the European Union, without Russia, is less than half the size of the US.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? If fuel cost more in the US, maybe the spatial distribution of habitation wouldn't have evolved in a manner that calls for long commutes.

The average commute in the UK is 8.5 miles, while in the US it is 16 miles. However, Europeans seem to be stuck in traffic longer (average commute time in UK = 45 mins, compared to 26 mins in the US), so I wonder what that does to fuel efficiency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=485098&page=1

 

[Astronuc]

Ignoring the concerns about global warming, several US utilities are seriously looking at adding more nuclear power plants.

Reactivating Nuclear Reactors for the Fight against Climate Change
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=reactivating-nuclear-reactors-to-fight-climate-change

At one site, Progress Energy is considering replacing two old coal units with two nuclear units. That's probably Crystal River where units 1 and 2 are coal, and unit 3 is an old B&W nuclear unit.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it? If fuel cost more in the US, maybe the spatial distribution of habitation wouldn't have evolved in a manner that calls for long commutes.

Certainly people respond to incentives, and the low price of fuel has encouraged long commutes. But with the modern tendency to change jobs frequently (average stay at a company is probably below 10 years), this could change within a generation if the price structure changed.

I used to commute 12 hours a week. This inefficient strategy was enabled by low gas prices. I was being subsidized, effectively, by the rest of the nation (in terms of political costs of maintaining stability in the Middle East, pollution, and such).

In order to discourage people from wasting resources like that, I'd prefer to see the government levy a high revenue-neutral fuel tax. At the moment, federal gasoline taxes ($0.47 per gallon) amount to roughly $330 per taxpayer.* Tripling the federal gas tax and giving a $650 rebate to each taxpayer would result in roughly the same revenue but raise gas prices at the pump by a dollar. Individuals could decide to use the extra money to help purchase a more fuel-efficient car, to simply buy the gasoline as before, or to switch to a less fuel-intensive form of transportation and pocket the difference.

* Without justification or research I'm using the figure of 200 million taxpayers. The point is to get a ballpark...

 

[phyzmatix]

...And the European Union, without Russia, is less than half the size of the US.

When mentioning the European Union, you automatically exclude Russia

Ignoring the concerns about global warming, several US utilities are seriously looking at adding more nuclear power plants.

Reactivating Nuclear Reactors for the Fight against Climate Change
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=reactivating-nuclear-reactors-to-fight-climate-change

At one site, Progress Energy is considering replacing two old coal units with two nuclear units. That's probably Crystal River where units 1 and 2 are coal, and unit 3 is an old B&W nuclear unit.

Why the big anti-nuclear feeling amongst people? I understand that it's a problem dealing with the waste and that (if my understanding is correct) rivers take a bit of a bashing, but how do they compare with, say, coal plants re environmental impact?