I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Mar 04, 2005 Posts: 2736 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:04 am Post subject: Letter to President Bush from Energy Future Coalition Mar 24
Please read the bottom of this link about a letter written to President Bush on March 24th 2005.
"We're talking about our security as a nation – as 26 former national security officials told the White House in a letter urging greater emphasis on alternative energies. "We do not know today what form a crisis over oil will take but we know that a crisis is coming," they wrote (see "Letter to the President" at www.energyfuturecoalition.org )."
It appears that the President is now aware of Peak Oil but I wonder what he is going to do about it. They are asking the President to launch a new initiative to develop alternative fuel technolgies.
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: Letter to President Bush from Energy Future Coalition Ma
Graeme wrote:
Please read the bottom of this link about a letter written to President Bush on March 24th 2005.
"We're talking about our security as a nation – as 26 former national security officials told the White House in a letter urging greater emphasis on alternative energies. "We do not know today what form a crisis over oil will take but we know that a crisis is coming," they wrote (see "Letter to the President" at www.energyfuturecoalition.org )."
It appears that the President is now aware of Peak Oil but I wonder what he is going to do about it. They are asking the President to launch a new initiative to develop alternative fuel technolgies.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:49 am Post subject:
Bush and Cheney have been aware of Peak Oil for a while... they've even ridiculed others for their "lack of an energy policy". _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Mar 04, 2005 Posts: 2736 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:27 am Post subject: Letter to President Bush from Energy Future Coalition Mar 24
Hasn't the Bush Energy Policy up until recently been business as usual? That is, further oil exploration? I think change is coming within the Administration though. It has started in Congress with Roscoe Barlett's Peak Oil presentation and continues next week with his solutions! But also within government departments (Department of Energy) and groups like IAGS.
http://www.iags.org/es.html
Eventually the President will make an announcement to the American people about a government program to develop alternative fuels and renewable energy resources. When this will be is anybody's guess. But I think it will have global influence.
Anyone disagree?
anything coming out of this white house won't help, cuz they are not going to devote resources to fund it. it will all be policy with no funding. if that can work, then yes, but i think anything they propose will require them to increase taxes if they want it to work.
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Letter to President Bush from Energy Future Coalition Ma
Graeme wrote:
It appears that the President is now aware of Peak Oil but I wonder what he is going to do about it. They are asking the President to launch a new initiative to develop alternative fuel technolgies.
Comments anyone?
Graeme
I doubt they are just discovering this fact. But as to what are they going to do about it? Nothing, absolutely nothing!! What can they do? Insist we all use less fuel? Can you imagine the reaction of the people of such an arrogant nation who thinks the world owes them a fantastically rich living standard that they must now cut back and live the life of a poor person?
You are dealing with highly inflated egos here. You can't just tell them to give up their free spending, life of leisure lifesyle and conserve oil. No way!
All you can do is go on as normal until it runs out, then it is every man for himself. In that day, the Bushes will be hiding in their underground bunker, safe and secure from it all, with plenty of reserve fuel to live off of for a couple of years, then come out after the majority of his fellow citizens are dead and rotted. Sound horrible? But, you do eventually get whats due you. Enjoy the ride! It will be more wild then the roller coaster at the amusement park.
The transition from oil to post oil will take about 15-25 years during which time fuels for cars will gradually change from gasoline to methanol (plus biodiesel and hybrid-electric). But in the meantime the government is trying to convince India and China to do the same otherwise US methanol plants will be useless.
Nearly twenty five years ago, I was engaged in a program of national importance - The U.S. Synthetic Fuels Program. Announced, as I recall, as a $60 Billion dollar program to “free us” from dependence upon Middle East crude oil, hundreds of engineers, scientists, financial wizards and executives spent years trying to find the most effective means to make crude oil from shale deposits, synthesis gas (syngas) from coal, and liquid fuels (in my case - methanol) from syngas. After thousands of man-years and about $1 Billion dollars of cost, we got our answer from Washington, D.C. - shut it down!!! Thank you President Carter. Ten years later, I read a local interview with the former head of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation in which he claimed victory, since the whole Synfuels program was a bluff that caused OPEC to blink and lower prices. As a result, we stopped investing in developing future liquid fuel options. Well, fast forward another decade. After two Middle East wars, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of U.S. lives, today’s Yogi (politicos) wonder why gasoline is so expensive and lament that we can’t run our autos on hydrogen yet. Where’s the real Yogi when we need a respite from reality?
Here’s what I learned during my four year investment and intervening years:
The world-wide energy crisis is driven by the cost and availability of gasoline.
The U.S. has a 200+ year supply of usable fuel in the form of coal.
We can convert coal to methanol using proven technology in “zero discharge” plants.
Methanol is a high performance motor fuel – just ask the Indy car drivers.
Methanol can be stored in tanks, transported by pipeline or tanker and pumped into our cars just like gasoline, which minimizes conversion costs for our fuel infrastructure.
Auto manufacturers can produce methanol engines at the same cost as gasoline engines.
Methanol is not a threat to groundwater, per the EPA.
We can build coal to methanol plants in Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia – creating jobs in regions that need investment.
Since methanol from coal will be more costly to produce than methanol from natural gas, we have to develop some measure of national resolve to allow investment sufficient to produce the amount of methanol needed long-term.
We have minimal technological, environmental and infrastructure conversion cost risks in converting our cars from burning gasoline to methanol. The biggest risk is financial and it’s a risk that U.S. energy companies won’t take. And who can blame them? The Middle East (Saudi Arabia) has pricing power by virtue of its control over marginal supply. If the U.S. makes a significant move toward building coal to methanol facilities, OPEC could pull a reverse Synthetic Fuels gambit on the U.S. Crude will suddenly become plentiful, gasoline prices will drop to $1 per gallon, and the billions invested in coal to methanol plants will be wasted. The cycle repeats. So, to implement a viable liquid fuels strategy, we have to be a bit smarter this time.
Geopolitically, it’s all about emerging consumers. China and India, two countries with over 30% of world’s population, are driving the current crisis. Increasing liquid fuels demand from China and India is the principal reason why crude prices are spiraling, as demand is forecast to outstrip supply. As these countries experience rapid industrialization, the demand for liquid fuels will outpace the supply of crude oil, keeping the cost of crude very high for some time. And we keep getting reports that both China and India are keen to make energy deals and invest to build a more secure supply of liquid fuels. While the world watches, both China and India are embarking on long-term dependence on Middle East crude oil.
To counter this impending disaster, I advocate a two step strategy that minimizes U.S. pain and the need for immediate investment, while improving crude oil supplies and lowering price pressure. The first step requires convincing both China and India that their best long-term fuels strategy is to convert their indigenous coal supplies into methanol. This investment program will provide local jobs, a cleaner environment, and drastically reduce their long term reliance on fickle Middle East nations. A major program by both countries will require U.S. technology, equipment and personnel skills, allowing us to establish best practices for the production facilities, transportation, and use of methanol for automobiles, while repatriating bloated foreign reserves of U.S. dollars, especially from China. And while these countries make this strategic investment over the next 25 years, crude oil suppliers will gradually lose pricing power.
The second step is for the U.S. to build its own coal to methanol facilities, allowing 15-25 years to make the full conversion, after first assisting China and India. This long-term conversion window will keep U.S. aggregate financial risk lower and allow slow but steady progress to avoid operating in a crisis mode. This time window will also allow U.S. energy companies to more purposefully plan and make sound financial decisions with less government involvement. If government involvement is required (and it may be), tax incentives and other risk reducing inducements can be phased in gradually, as we adjust to a changing liquid fuels supply, reducing the need for economic shocks and other dislocations.
But, my biggest concern in implementing this two step liquid fuels strategy is the same disappointment I faced twenty five years ago – the lack of political will. If we can’t sustain the will to implement this long term strategy, we will be faced with a continued reliance on unreliable suppliers, high costs, and, yes, more armed conflict. We need to be smarter this time and have some backbone. As Yogi said: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”
Peter J. Vanderzee spent ten years in the energy industry and was a project manager for a $1 Billion Synthetic Fuels project. http://www.iags.org/n032805t1.htm
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
