[elects]

Bush's plan to wean US off imported oil: ambitious enough?

Right direction, say energy gurus. But some puzzle over R&D that won't cut oil demand.
More. . .

I'm surprised that no one has started this thread already.
I suppose the rabbid Bush haters don't like the fact that basically it's as I have been posting all along.
There is no real "alternative" energy.
Read the rest of the article because it tells the harsh truth.
Yes, there is lot's of worthless pork in the Bush plan, but the cruel truth is we have little choice and reality bites.
The hard truth is there is no alternative to oil.
Going to alternatives like fuel cells, or any other hydrogen based plan is stupid since it requires more energy to produce the hydrogen than what you get out. In effect making our problems worse.
The same goes for gasohol and a lot of the other crackpot ideas.

[paulaglober]

Bush's plan to wean US off imported oil: ambitious enough?

Right direction, say energy gurus. But some puzzle over R&D that won't cut oil demand.
More. . .

I'm surprised that no one has started this thread already.
I suppose the rabbid Bush haters don't like the fact that basically it's as I have been posting all along.
There is no real "alternative" energy.
Read the rest of the article because it tells the harsh truth.
Yes, there is lot's of worthless pork in the Bush plan, but the cruel truth is we have little choice and reality bites.
The hard truth is there is no alternative to oil.
Going to alternatives like fuel cells, or any other hydrogen based plan is stupid since it requires more energy to produce the hydrogen than what you get out. In effect making our problems worse.
The same goes for gasohol and a lot of the other crackpot ideas.

I don't think it's correct to say "There is no real "alternative" energy".

Maybe there IS, maybe there ISN'T. We, and the market(s), are only indifferently interested right now in looking at other things.

The thing is, oil and coal and all these "energy" sources aren't in an infinite suppy.

While they SEEM like they are today, we aren't USING them very efficiently.

Drive down a highway in America and see what's on the road.

Anyways.

Lets pretend that tomorrow there was no more oil on Earth (the day may come).

What would happen ?

[sydramySweame]

Today there is no alternative fuel.
End of argument. You answered that yourself.
Yes, maybe perhaps in 40 or 50 years we will have fusion power, maybe not.
Thirty years ago we were told fusion power was 30 years in the future. It still is.
There is no alternative today.
Liberals take cheap shots at private enterprise all the while they enjoy all the benefits from it.
To say that BIG OIL is to blame and they are holding things back is highly stupid because Europe and Japan have less oil than we do and they have not come up with an alternative either. Japan has no fossil fuels and Europe not enough. Yet they have not come up with any alternative either.
Am I to believe Exxon is holding them back as well?
That is nonsense. If there were an alternative we would be using it.

[SallyIsNice5]

It's not enough, the idea that American is addicted to oil may of surprised a few people, but to me it was stating the obvious. Solar Power, wind power, these are all alterntive sources of powers that should of been fully utilized years ago but they aren't part of the solution of depending on oil. Coal, yes, but not oil. The reality is that this is a problem thats been around for a long time, at least since the 70's when the first fuel crises showed its ugly head. We're just now being forced to face this problem that we always knew, and the alterntive to oil simply just doesn't exist (Thus, trying to get more out of oil might equally be as good as putting our dollars and hopes into seven years down the road with R&D).
Granted, R&D, works to some degree but to me its a little niave to think that technology will pull a rabbit out of its hat. As for Ethanol, I for see problems that you face due to farming like the wether, and at best we can only relieve 40% of our dependant upon oil. Solar Power is no good for cars, neither is wind power, and hydrogen is a old concept but its still unfeaseable. If anything, I think the energy policy is too little too late, because we're obviously running into a wall here as the market for oil grows tighter and tighter. I'm just sorry it took this long to get interested, if we had started 20 years ago maybe it would of worked but we don't have that luxury (Problems I'm not pinning on one President, or one politican, but on the USA as a whole).
I don't know what we're going to do, but considering a bunch of people who have oil are unfriendly to us, I'd say that we start by stop calling everybody a "evil bastard and telling them to screw themselves". We aren't in this world alone, and obviously we can't do anything entirely without them (as this whole oil problem suggest, kinda ironic considering how much fuel Aircraft Carriers and tanks use up). I'd say that we're screwed, but I want to have some hope at least, maybe technology will pull a rabbit out of its hat and we'll all live happily ever after! I tell you one thing though, the guy, gal, or team who comes up with this new recycable energy source (if it exist), will change the world in a single moment. Energy is the one thing that us held us back all these years, why haven't those who wanted rocket packs got rocket packs now that those times have come (Besides them being unsafe)? Energy, so as soon as somebody comes up with such a thing they'll be saying "Edison who?" Well, I can dream anyway. ^.^

[ignonsoli]

In case you've forgotten the energy policy in this country was written by the oil company executives in closed session with former oil comany executive cheney. Forgive me if I seem cynical but when the foxes are running the henhouse don't expect them to become vegetarians.

[Manteiv]

Yeah, the energy companies are so powerful they wrote the same policies in Europe and in Japan.
Well, either way we are screwed.
You can blame whomever, it's cheap has hell to say the energy companies got us into this when you look at a public that is absolutely addicted to powerful cars with very thirsty engines.
In fact it's stupid because you can't explain why Japan and Europe don't do any better than we when it comes to oil.
Nope, I don't give a shit about finding some donkey to pin the tail on, that is nonproductive and stupid.
I know we are screwed and the result is going to be lower and lower standards of living as time goes by. You can blame it on whomever if that makes you feel better but it's not going to change anything.

[WebDocMan]

Yeah, the energy companies are so powerful they wrote the same policies in Europe and in Japan.
Well, either way we are screwed.
You can blame whomever, it's cheap has hell to say the energy companies got us into this when you look at a public that is absolutely addicted to powerful cars with very thirsty engines.
In fact it's stupid because you can't explain why Japan and Europe don't do any better than we when it comes to oil.
Nope, I don't give a shit about finding some donkey to pin the tail on, that is nonproductive and stupid.
I know we are screwed and the result is going to be lower and lower standards of living as time goes by. You can blame it on whomever if that makes you feel better but it's not going to change anything.

Did you read my post before you responded?

I wasn't talking about blaming anybody for anything. I was talking about your unrealistic hope that oil companies would act against their own interest by helping to find alternate energy sources. Now if there were an alternate source which was just as profitable as oil and required no capital outlay I'd say yeah, they might do it. But if there was such a source we would already be using it.

So if you are counting on an energy policy written by oil company execs to free us from dependance on the arabs, don't hold your breath. For that we would need an energy policy written by consumer advocates, environmental organizations, and people who want us out of the middle east. What do you think are the odds on that happening?

[Anatolii]

Well, we have a misunderstanding here because I don't count on the energy companies for shit.
They are in the business of supplying you with gasoline, and why would anyone expect them to know anything about any other form of energy?
They take the oil out of the ground and fill a demand. You and me create the demand. Why would anyone expect oil companies to know shit about alternatives?
If you want to know who to blame it's easy. Go look in the mirror.
All of us are to blame and none of us are to blame. Oil is there and it's getting used up. Nobody knows what else to use.
That is that.
Government can provide leadership and force a reduction in consumption but in the end the result will be the same. No more oil, no more cushy standard of living, lots of wars and all that.
No government anywhere on earth has done anything to alleviate that situation. None.
There simply is no other alternative to oil and natural gas, both of which will mostly be gone by the end of this century.
Only Liberals would look to the government to invent anything besides taxes and misery anyway. If an alternative comes, it will come from the private sector and not the government.
I don't believe it will happen but miracles do take place.

[art_fan_12]

Today there is no alternative fuel.
End of argument. You answered that yourself.
Yes, maybe perhaps in 40 or 50 years we will have fusion power, maybe not.
Thirty years ago we were told fusion power was 30 years in the future. It still is.
There is no alternative today.
Liberals take cheap shots at private enterprise all the while they enjoy all the benefits from it.
To say that BIG OIL is to blame and they are holding things back is highly stupid because Europe and Japan have less oil than we do and they have not come up with an alternative either. Japan has no fossil fuels and Europe not enough. Yet they have not come up with any alternative either.
Am I to believe Exxon is holding them back as well?
That is nonsense. If there were an alternative we would be using it.

While I don't agree with you totally, for once you are making sense. Fusion and/or fission are the only known alternatives. In both cases this is where we should be putting our money and our expertise.

In the case of fusion, more research into making it feasable.

in the case of fission. More research into making it safer-- in part by finding a way to make the byproducts

USABLE

instead of storing them for umpteen hundred years.

[corkBrobe]

Well, we have a misunderstanding here because I don't count on the energy companies for shit.
They are in the business of supplying you with gasoline, and why would anyone expect them to know anything about any other form of energy?
They take the oil out of the ground and fill a demand. You and me create the demand. Why would anyone expect oil companies to know shit about alternatives?
If you want to know who to blame it's easy. Go look in the mirror.
All of us are to blame and none of us are to blame. Oil is there and it's getting used up. Nobody knows what else to use.
That is that.
Government can provide leadership and force a reduction in consumption but in the end the result will be the same. No more oil, no more cushy standard of living, lots of wars and all that.
No government anywhere on earth has done anything to alleviate that situation. None.
There simply is no other alternative to oil and natural gas, both of which will mostly be gone by the end of this century.
Only Liberals would look to the government to invent anything besides taxes and misery anyway. If an alternative comes, it will come from the private sector and not the government.
I don't believe it will happen but miracles do take place.

Well, back to my question.

What is going to happen when the finite supply of this runs OUT ?

In 50 or 100 or so years.

There will be a HUGE population of beings on this planet that are dependant on it moving things around for us. There won't be enough horses and carriages for us all

We either learn how to deal in ways that don't involve these finite resources forever or SOMETHING.

What ?

Are we all going to start living on farms and cultivating and raising our OWN supply of food ?

Will we invent a kind of electric or nuclear mass transit system for us all ?

Will we all start riding bicycles (there goes the obesity problem) ?

Hang gliding ?

Surfing ?

Skateboarding ?

I think doniston makes some good points above.

[usadatronourl]

"No government anywhere on earth has done anything to alleviate that situation. None.
There simply is no other alternative to oil and natural gas, both of which will mostly be gone by the end of this century."

"Seven out of 10 of all new cars sold in Brazil are now "flex-fuel" - owners can fill them with either ethanol or petrol."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E30417,00.html

Brazil has a very successful ethnol program based on sugar cane. It's much less expensive to convert sugar cane into ethanol than it is corn, and takes less energy to do so. Brazil projects that in 10 years it will have a a healthy ethanol export business.

I agree that Americans have no one to blame but themselves for consuming so much oil. We consume in vehicle usage, heating, manufacturing, etc, approximately 20m barrels per day. That breaks down to about 3.5 gallons of oil per person per day.

I don't blame the oil companies for that.

[Podosinovik]

"No government anywhere on earth has done anything to alleviate that situation. None.
There simply is no other alternative to oil and natural gas, both of which will mostly be gone by the end of this century."

"Seven out of 10 of all new cars sold in Brazil are now "flex-fuel" - owners can fill them with either ethanol or petrol."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E30417,00.html

Brazil has a very successful ethnol program based on sugar cane. It's much less expensive to convert sugar cane into ethanol than it is corn, and takes less energy to do so. Brazil projects that in 10 years it will have a a healthy ethanol export business.

I agree that Americans have no one to blame but themselves for consuming so much oil. We consume in vehicle usage, heating, manufacturing, etc, approximately 20m barrels per day. That breaks down to about 3.5 gallons of oil per person per day.

I don't blame the oil companies for that.

But it's important that we drive gigantic suvs and trucks hauling nothing but our own fat asses.

Lets not consider tomorrow or anything.

As long as we feeeeeeeeeel good and are happy today....

........... fuck tomorrow.

Totally ignore the following as most of us have/do:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=24897

[craditc]

But it's important that we drive gigantic suvs and trucks hauling nothing but our own fat asses.

Lets not consider tomorrow or anything.

As long as we feeeeeeeeeel good and are happy today....

........... fuck tomorrow.

***

It looks like the SUV binge of the last decade is on the wane. It really wouldn't take drastic changes to significantly reduce gasoline consumption, which is the single biggest factor in oil consumption.

Until the SUV rage, the US had significantly improved motor vehicle mileage per gallon from 1970s levels. But with SUVs and other light trucks being exempt from CAFE standards, it made good business sense for the automakers to start promoting high profit SUVs. People bit, and bit hard, I think the automakers knew the sales would not rise forever, but the US makers in particular were too slow in coming to that realization, and simply weren't prepared when their big ticket items went bust. Probably an oversimplification.

Hybrid technology may not be the entire answer by any stretch. But it is improving and should eventually be able to make a serious dent in gas consumption.

[Teareerah]

In case you've forgotten the energy policy in this country was written by the oil company executives in closed session with former oil comany executive cheney. Forgive me if I seem cynical but when the foxes are running the henhouse don't expect them to become vegetarians.

"Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports".
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...n/13767738.htm
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
(...)
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth. You know, I heard Bush had turned into a hippie on the radio, but I didn't think anything of it. Perhaps the references to "clean coal" and nuclear power should've suggested something.. But I like the twist on this story - no need to invent anything, or suggest any possibilities on how the Bush- administration is treating policy and official statements. They explain it themselves. Good thing, or they'd be caught in /lying/ later..

Of course, how many other papers would refer to their "conference call" after the speech, and instead discussing the viability of his suggestion(and gain a few points towards their "balance" award)? And how many papers would refer to the pre- briefing of the SOTU speech they attended, and explain what they were told the speech would be about, instead of figuring out a way to fit Bush's remarks into the unspoken context? I would guess - not many.

Anyway - what did the president mean, then? Why did he bring this up at all? Suggestions?

[agildeta]

The comment that ethanol cannot be 'the oil replacement' because it takes too much energy to make it in the first place is mistaken. Oil has high energy density, is comparatively easy to transport and handle, and is comparatively cheap. Ethanol has comparable properties but is comparatively expensive. If oil gets expensive enough, it'll make sense to make use of our electrical capacity and /or huge coal reserves to make ethanol. (Which is not to say I'm pushing ethanol as 'the fuel of the future' or whatnot, just pointing out that the point was not properly thought thru.)

[sadgpokx]

....There is no real "alternative" energy......

Nuclear. Use excess night time capacity to make hydrogen. Run vehicles on hydrogen and tell the arabs to kiss our asses.

[Esmeralfaf]

Without doing the exact math, I would say we would need hundreds of nuclear power plants to not only replace the oil and gas fired ones in use today, but also to create enough energy to make all that hydrogen at night.

I suspect that what is really going to happen is some nuclear power plants will be built, maybe a hundred or so, a whole lot less energy usage will have to take place as far as cars go, meaning we will all end up driving something the size of a Geo or some such junk and taking the bus as well.
The economy will tank because oil permeates our entire economy.
Some electric cars will be on the road with some hydrogen cars.
I don't see gasohol and biodiesel doing much because there is only so much waste grass and crap to go around.
Anyway you slice it, it don't look good.

[sarasmid]

Without doing the exact math, I would say we would need hundreds of nuclear power plants to not only replace the oil and gas fired ones in use today, but also to create enough energy to make all that hydrogen at night…...

The facts don’t support this assessment.
 Right now we have 103 nuke reactors at 65 plants., producing 94,000 MW, or 2,256,000,000 KWH/day.
 We import 10,000,000 bbls of crude/ day.
 A barrel of crude produces 1610 KWH.

Doing the math, that equates to 735 new reactors to replace the imported oil. This may seem like a lot to someone with a pessimistic attitude, but this is a country of optimists. Based on the past results of the “unachievable” goals that this country has met and surpassed, I’d say that this is a relatively simple ans achievable goal.

Keep in mid also that there are a lot of other things available to reduce the overall number of reactors needed.
 Transition to diesel, electric and hybrid for cars and trucks.
 Better use of rail transportation, still the most energy efficient method of transporting freight across land.
 Better use of clean coal technology. We have 250 years known supply.
 Exploitation of natural gas reserves.
 Alternate sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave).
 Continued energy efficient devices, such as LED lighting and LCD displays.

[fajerdoksdsaaker]

Saving energy or rather more efficient use of energy would be great help to ease a lot of our problems and to give us more time to develop alternatives. The problem is, that many people are not yet ready for it. Audi and VW offered cars that consumed less than 3 l per 100 km (that's about 94 mpg I think). They were a little more expensive than the regular models and obviously weren't so powerful and rather small cars. So only very few people bought them. I don't even know if they still offer them, but they were no big success anyway ... despite of the even higher gas prices here in Europe.

[OrefZorremn]

The facts don’t support this assessment.
 Right now we have 103 nuke reactors at 65 plants., producing 94,000 MW, or 2,256,000,000 KWH/day.
 We import 10,000,000 bbls of crude/ day.
 A barrel of crude produces 1610 KWH.

Doing the math, that equates to 735 new reactors to replace the imported oil. This may seem like a lot to someone with a pessimistic attitude, but this is a country of optimists. Based on the past results of the “unachievable” goals that this country has met and surpassed, I’d say that this is a relatively simple ans achievable goal.

Keep in mid also that there are a lot of other things available to reduce the overall number of reactors needed.
 Transition to diesel, electric and hybrid for cars and trucks.
 Better use of rail transportation, still the most energy efficient method of transporting freight across land.
 Better use of clean coal technology. We have 250 years known supply.
 Exploitation of natural gas reserves.
 Alternate sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave).
 Continued energy efficient devices, such as LED lighting and LCD displays.

Swell, now all you need is a long extension cord and an electric car.
The lions shar of oil imports go for fuel and chemicals.
You offer more electricity at a staggering expense of 16 new nuclear power plants per state!
Electricity is not a good power source for cars. The best storage medium is still the lead-acid battery, which would actually make those cars unafordable to the masses. They also suck.