Obama aims for oil independence

[phyzmatix]

The man keeps going!

I know nothing about this topic other than what is available in mainstream media. Was wondering if those of you in the know could comment on the possibility and viability of these goals and policies?

Obama aims for oil independence

 

[The Dagda]

Sure if the US radically alters it's policies; pours money into its transport infrastructure; starts weaning the US off it's love of cars; forces businesses to clean up their act; creates incentive for people to be more efficient energy use wise, publicises recycling and energy efficient/saving devices. Perhaps it could sell petrol for a price to support such measures; and of course the majority of people have to be on board; assuming they also use more options like Nuclear and or renewable energy sources. Then it might just be possible. It would help if the fusion geeks would get the lead out and produce something worthy. It's a dream, but it's one worth aiming for I think. Give it 30 years and who knows?

 

[mgb_phys]

Trivial - just invade Canada and Mexico.

 

[The Dagda]

Trivial - just invade Canada and Mexico.

Bush is out remember.

 

[LowlyPion]

Sure if the US radically alters it's policies; pours money into its transport infrastructure; starts weaning the US off it's love of cars; forces businesses to clean up their act; creates incentive for people to be more efficient energy use wise, publicises recycling and energy efficient/saving devices. Perhaps it could sell petrol for a price to support such measures; and of course the majority of people have to be on board; assuming they also use more options like Nuclear and or renewable energy sources. Then it might just be possible. It would help if the fusion geeks would get the lead out and produce something worthy. It's a dream, but it's one worth aiming for I think. Give it 30 years and who knows?

Sounds like a plan.

 

[mgb_phys]

Sounds like a plan.

Could this be the new picture of New york ?
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

 

[phyzmatix]

Could this be the new picture of New york ?
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

Might also have a positive impact on obesity in the states and lessen the pressure on your health care system

 

[CRGreathouse]

(yes, I recognize this wasn't serious)

Trivial - just invade Canada and Mexico.

Not nearly. Mexico produces 3.71 Mbbl and Canada 3.23 Mbbl per year. The US net imports are 12.22 Mbbl... so even if the US conquered Canada and Mexico and stopped their citizens from consuming oil (!), it would still be a net importer -- in fact, still the largest oil importer!

Further, I don't think this would be trivial. Iraq's military expenditures were 1.3 billion USD before the US invasion; Canada's were 7.9 billion USD. Canada's current military expenditures (adjusted for inflation by the GDP deflator as estimated by the St. Louis Fed -- this should be a more reasonable measure than the CPI for this sort of expense) are 14.7 billion USD.

So ignoring the vast differences in size, technology, and wealth (Canada could more effectively increase military output than could Iraq, which was already overtaxed), Canada is still be 11 times stronger than prewar Iraq.

 

[mgb_phys]

For Nov 08 in 1000 barrels/day - total is 9.8 Mbarrels/day

CANADA 2,028
SAUDI ARABIA 1,461
MEXICO 1,296
VENEZUELA 1,071
NIGERIA 775
IRAQ 452
ANGOLA 438
ALGERIA 381
BRAZIL 280
KUWAIT 272
ECUADOR 214
COLOMBIA 157
RUSSIA 152
UNITED KINGDOM 117
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 114
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

I had thought Canada was higher, figures I remembered were >60% Canada, 20% mexico and <20% ME - might have been when the price was high and tar sands were more viable.

Figures for gasoline are about the same for top importers but less from tiny countries.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The man keeps going!

I know nothing about this topic other than what is available in mainstream media. Was wondering if those of you in the know could comment on the possibility and viability of these goals and policies?

Obama aims for oil independence

If we quit screwing around and set some goals we can certainly do much better than we are now. And I do think that energy independence is achievable; esp with people like Chu on the job. Between high efficiency solar cells, advanced wind and water turbines, biofuels technologies [esp algae], and ocean [wave and tide] power, the number of available options increases by the day.

And no, bicycles are not the answer. This may be practical for some, but for most people this is not an option.

 

[mgb_phys]

Not sure energy independence is actually achievable (at least in the next few decades) but it is an excellent goal.

Just persuading America that it's more patriotic to drive sub-compacts or take transit than buy a V8 truck that is built 'American tough' - but runs on Arab oil would be a start.
Compared to Europe there are huge savings to be made in energy usage - if you can put a man on the moon you can certainly invent double-glazing!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

High effiency windows are now common in new homes.

The key is to keep the price of fuel high - that is what finally forces people to change. So I think a floor should be set for the price of gas and diesel. Unfortunately, the Republican economic collapse will slow the progress substantially. About the last thing we would want to do now is triple the price of gas [where it was last July].

 

[mgb_phys]

But not this level of energy efficiency http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1 (have you tried to open a window in Europe - it's like a hatch on the space station!)

The trouble is you have to make fuel really REALLY expensive for people to change.
When gas here went from $0.80/L to >$1.5/L over the summer, transit use did go up by 10-15%.
The government then introduced a 3c/L 'air quality' tax to encourage transit use but since gas also fell back to >$1/L it's hard to see how that can have any effect - so it looks just like another tax grab.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But not this level of energy efficiency http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1 (have you tried to open a window in Europe - it's like a hatch on the space station!)

The trouble is you have to make fuel really REALLY expensive for people to change.
When gas here went from $0.80/L to >$1.5/L over the summer, transit use did go up by 10-15%.
The government then introduced a 3c/L 'air quality' tax to encourage transit use but since gas also fell back to >$1/L it's hard to see how that can have any effect - so it looks just like another tax grab.

We begin to see real change at about $3 a gallon. At 4$ per gallon we began to see drastic change. I would like to see a floor of $3 once the economy recovers a bit.

One problem with air-tight homes is that they can be unhealthy. One of the bigger problems in new homes is outgassing from synthetic materials. A somewhat related example: Some may recall the FEMA trailers used for Katrina victims. People had to move out due to the toxic air. Apparently it's not safe to live in a trailer for extended periods of time.

But we have many examples of low-energy homes in the US - passive and active technolgies. In fact, many people here have been pursuing and developing this stuff for decades now.

IIRC, Binzing lives in a hay-bale home - very efficient.

 

[Adrock1795]

Ive noticed parts of Europe use excessively concrete, clays, masonry for home building, which seem to be more insulating then wood, but i don't know the difference between cost.

I don't think this is the time do dedicate resources to large scale alternative energy projects. I don't think the argument that it will make million of jobs is a true assessment, I personal don't think the industries have the capacity to increase supply by such a degree in a short time frame.

It has to be a gradual, thought out decision with no emotions involved.

 

[mgb_phys]

Ive noticed parts of Europe use excessively concrete, clays, masonry for home building, which seem to be more insulating then wood, but i don't know the difference between cost.

Generally houses are smaller, it's a more densely populated environment so land is expensive compared to building cost, that and a feeling that houses should last for 200years explains the building materials. Most of the insulation comes from extra material that is added - it doesn't really matter if the shell is brick or wood, it's the required insulation in building codes that are important.

I don't think this is the time do dedicate resources to large scale alternative energy projects. I don't think the argument that it will make million of jobs is a true assessment, I personal don't think the industries have the capacity to increase supply by such a degree in a short time frame.

You mean this isn't the time to do research because oil is cheap this month so it's not a problem anymore?
If you mean that you can't rely on solar/wind/wave to suddenly replace fossil - you are quite correct, nuclear is the only thing in the next half century that is going to make a dent.

It has to be a gradual, thought out decision with no emotions involved.

Actually it's all about emotions. What is needed is a change in people's attitude so that they feel wasting energy is like throwing litter out of the car window or pouring waste engine oil into a stream.
Instead of a god given right because it's cheap.

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds like a plan.

Could you point me to the plan, please? I seem to have missed it. Obama has a [rough] goal, not a plan. And right now, the ideas that Obama has do not include the one component that makes such a goal achievable: nuclear power.

There are a number of countries that have similar goals, but only one that has achieved such a goal: France. And they did it the only way it can be done: with nuclear power. Some other countries have set the goal to do it without nuclear power (see: Germany) and it will either ruin them or they will just accept failing to meet the goal.

Here's a list of per capita carbon emissions for 206 countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Note where some big, developed countries are:

USA: 10 (20.4)
Canada: 11 (20.0)
UK: 37 (9.8)
Germany: 38 (9.8)
France: 63 (6.2)

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:

As a result of its efforts, Germany has become a world leader in the use of renewable energy, particularly in photovoltaic and wind turbine installations. At the same time, they continue to rely heavily on coal power, with usage actually increasing to offset the phase-out of nuclear energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
And that will only get worse.

 

[Ms Music]

Mexico produces 3.71 Mbbl and Canada 3.23 Mbbl per year. The US net imports are 12.22 Mbbl...

For Nov 08 in 1000 barrels/day - total is 9.8 Mbarrels/day

CANADA 2,028
SAUDI ARABIA 1,461
MEXICO 1,296
VENEZUELA 1,071
NIGERIA 775
IRAQ 452
ANGOLA 438
ALGERIA 381
BRAZIL 280
KUWAIT 272
ECUADOR 214
COLOMBIA 157
RUSSIA 152
UNITED KINGDOM 117
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 114

I can remember as a kid driving down the California coast and seeing wells all over the place. And then of course, Beverly Hillbillies. Why did the US stop pumping its own resources, and what are we capable of pumping? I have heard several stories, and none seem to "gel" with me as being factual.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

Their solution is simply to burn the coal in Poland and ship back the power.
Germany's problem is that it has lots of coal but it it's really nasty sulfurous brown stuff.
Burning it hasn't really been a problem upto now because the winds blow east, East Germany was hardly likely to complain and Poland wasn't in a position to.
Now that Poland is in the EU - Germany can mine coal in Poland more cheaply, burn it in Polish power stations and ship the power back cheaply, while at the same time claiming huge environmental improvements. The rest of the power is going to come from Russian natural gas - which is expensive (economically and politically) but lower in CO2

 

[mgb_phys]

I can remember as a kid driving down the California coast and seeing wells all over the place. And then of course, Beverly Hillbillies. Why did the US stop pumping its own resources, and what are we capable of pumping?

The small local wells in most of the US aren't worth the extraction cost for the big producers - especially when you factor in the cost of trucking it to the refinery.

The resources that matter are in the Gulf of Mexico and some off shore bits of Alaska (good luck getting those - not the bits the pipelines currently go to in the preserved wilderness but the ones in deep ice bound water off the Russian coast! )

http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/Assets/Photos/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

 

[mheslep]

Could this be the new picture of New york ?
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

Bikes are fine for a large museum/amusement park like old Amsterdam (shown in the ski-epic photo), area 219 sq km, vs New York 790 sq km (and wider metropolitan area 17,000 sq km). Go out to the south side of Amsterdam where the financial district sets up and the wide boulevard for cars rule again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_trade_center_amsterda.jpg

 

[mheslep]

High effiency windows are now common in new homes.

The key is to keep the price of fuel high - that is what finally forces people to change. So I think a floor should be set for the price of gas and diesel. Unfortunately, the Republican economic collapse will slow the progress substantially. About the last thing we would want to do now is triple the price of gas [where it was last July].

IMO, you had it right in the 3rd sentence, not the last. Set a floor, indexed to inflation.

 

[mheslep]

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

As a result of its efforts, Germany has become a world leader in the use of renewable energy, particularly in photovoltaic and wind turbine installations. At the same time, they continue to rely heavily on coal power, with usage actually increasing to offset the phase-out of nuclear energy.

Small point - As of last summer the US is the world leader in energy produced from Wind.

 

[mheslep]

I can remember as a kid driving down the California coast and seeing wells all over the place. And then of course, Beverly Hillbillies. Why did the US stop pumping its own resources, and what are we capable of pumping? I have heard several stories, and none seem to "gel" with me as being factual.

The small local wells in most of the US aren't worth the extraction cost for the big producers - especially when you factor in the cost of trucking it to the refinery...

Yes that cheap, easy to get oil in the US lower 48 states is more than half gone.

 

[Gokul43201]

Small point - As of last summer the US is the world leader in energy produced from Wind.

Per capita, it is less than a third of Germany's. What is important though is the growth rate. While German wind power production is close to saturation, US production is shooting up rapidly, and has lots more room for growth. A trebling in the next 5 years doesn't seem inconceivable. But even with that increase, wind would only contribute about 5% of the US power consumption.

 

[mheslep]

If we break out energy use into transportation and everything else, I think its clear Obama's energy chief Chu has the following plan for 'everything else': Buy efficiency to essentially freeze energy use at current levels while allowing economic growth. Then gradually move into renewables solar and wind to replace what he call's a 'nightmare' - coal. See slide 17 here.
http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director/assets/docs/AAAS_Keynote_B.pdf
Chu repeatedly and emphatically goes back to his experience with energy efficiency in California and work at Berkley labs so I think this is a safe assumption. Also the US doesn't use much oil for domestic electricity production so this is not much of an energy independence issue.

For transportation energy independence something radical is required: either some large breakthroughs in the cheap production of biofuels AND transportation efficiency, or an ~80% conversion of the US ground transportation fleet to electric based transportation. In the latter case, I agree with Russ that nuclear power is required.

This all can get more complicated, mixing and matching ala the Boone Picken's plan, but I think the above is how Obama/Chu will sound.

 

[mheslep]

Per capita, it is less than a third of Germany's.

I think Germany's early investment is a cautionary illustrative tale of alt-E. They did it before it was ready - when turbine technology was still relatively lousy. Consequently they poured a huge pile of cash into wind and popped far more towers than would be needed w/ state of the art wind.

What is important though is the growth rate. While German wind power production is close to saturation, US production is shooting up rapidly, and has lots more room for growth. A trebling in the next 5 years doesn't seem inconceivable. But even with that increase, wind would only contribute about 5% of the US power consumption.

And here if we grow that fast just on hype without clarifying the rules and cobuilding the required transmission system, we'll be early too. Offshore wind, http://www.capewind.org/article24.htm" is probably dumb (420MW(peak) for $1B ) at more than twice the cost of wind belt onshore wind.

 

[phyzmatix]

...And right now, the ideas that Obama has do not include the one component that makes such a goal achievable: nuclear power.

There are a number of countries that have similar goals, but only one that has achieved such a goal: France. And they did it the only way it can be done: with nuclear power...

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

 

[mgb_phys]

What are the shortcomings where wind, solar power and biofuels are involved?

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

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.

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.

Remember it is very difficult to store large amounts of power, it's also expensive and wastefull to ship it across a large country.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IMO, you had it right in the 3rd sentence, not the last. Set a floor, indexed to inflation.

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

 

[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.