Friday, November 20, 2009
How to Spur U.S. Renewable Energy
Industry experts weigh in at a conference in Washington, DC.
U.S. policy could do a lot better job supporting renewable energy, according to industry experts at a renewable energy conference today in Washington, DC, hosted by the American Council for Renewable Energy.
John Graham, the president of BP Wind Energy, renewed calls for long-term policy stability, citing sharp drop-offs in wind development as tax credits expired in 1999, 2001, and 2003. Since those credits are expected to expire again in the next few years--and since wind companies have three- to five-year time schedules--the wind industry could soon see another such slowdown, in addition to the hit its taken from the recession. He called on Congress to set up longer term credits, and a cap and trade system, to help wind projects get funding.
Steen Riisgaard, the CEO of Novozymes, based in Denmark, had more specific recommendations for the biofuels industry. He said the current 10 percent limit on the amount of ethanol in gasoline is slowing down the industry in the United States. He said that the EPA should raise what he called this "arbitrary limit" on ethanol content to 15 percent. The current limit effectively puts a cap on the amount of ethanol that can be sold in the U.S. Eventually flex fuel vehicles that run on E85 (85 percent ethanol) could increase the amount of ethanol purchased, but so far sales have been limited by the number of fueling stations that sell ethanol and the number of cars that can run on high percentages of ethanol. If the EPA raises the amount of ethanol that can be incorporated into regular gasoline, the market for ethanol could quickly climb. But higher percentages of ethanol are controversial because they could cause damage in some engines or void warranties.
Riisgaard's other suggestions sounded less controversial. He wants the federal government to require 50 percent of all new vehicles in the next couple of years to be flex fuel vehicles capable of running on 85 percent ethanol (which seems feasible given the low cost of doing this), to require 25 percent of the largest gas stations to install E-85 pumps by 2014 (funded by reducing subsidies to the gasoline industry), and to require federal agencies to buy only flex-fuel vehicles and use only E-85 in new vehicles. Finally he called on the Department of Energy to send out what remains of $480 million already approved for funding advanced biofuels. Do this, he said, and you'll create 100,000 jobs, and keep the rest of the world from overtaking the current U.S. lead in biofuels.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
If ethanol can be produced at same price per BTU as gasoline, it gets a chance in the market. Otherwise, it's a loser.
Even 10% ethanol has done severe damage to the elastomers in my cars fuel system.
bildan
11/20/2009
Posts:20
The oil industry gets a gigantic amount of direct and indirect subsidies. There are more than 700 overseas US military bases, most of which are concentrated in the Middle East. Their role is to guarantee our oil supply. How much of a taxpayer subsidy is that?...Whatever the number, you can be sure that the price you pay for gasoline at the pump does not represent the real price.
Ethanol may not be the answer. But anyway, we need to get out of this oil trap.
gabrielg01
11/20/2009
Posts:418
lasertekk
11/23/2009
Posts:88
As noted, we have almost 700 bases, and somewhere near 250,000 soldiers and contracted teams scattered all over the region just to secure those oil reserves. I know, you all are thinking we're there for those tasty Majool dates and Persian Rugs, but the CIA World Fact book states otherwise.
Now if the math is correct - AND PLEASE SHOOT ME DOWN IF YOUR FIGURES ARE DIFFERENT, then the costs for gasoline from the Middle East Region look like the following:
Barrels of Oil consumed by the US in 2008 7,100,000,000
Percent of Oil consumed by US which came from Middle East (UAE) 12%
Barrels of Oil from Middle East Sources 852,000,000
One barrel of oil is 42 US gallons and can be refined into 19.6 gallons of gasoline
US Gallons of gasoline derived from Middle Eastern Sources 16,699,200,000
October 2009 costs (Congressional Budget Office) for deploying 1 US Soldier $1,000,000.00
US Soldiers Deployed in Middle East Region (1 year billet) 250,000
Cost of US Military Personell Securing Middle East Region $250,000,000,000.00 per year, and growing. If we deploy 40,000 more troops in the region, then these costs will go up.
Hidden Cost of a US Gallon of Gas (Military Cost / Gallons of Gas) $14.97
Retail cost of Gasoline (Gasbuddy.com) $2.60
True cost of a gallon of gas? $17.57
Shifting 10% of these funds to develop alternative energy solutions would be our best choice and NOT raise taxes to the typical America.
We could easily redirect $25 Billion the first year to develop new solutions here, which is my opinion is far better than trying to solve the riddle of why these people hate us as much as they hate each other. We've been securing those oil reserves since 1945, and NOBODY is reimbursing us one cent.
If this Federal Administration is truly transparent, they ought to share the real figures with the tax payers outright, so we're better educated to deal with costs to move away from Oil and Petroleum. If we could figure out a way to get out of this mess, and make policing the Middle East a UN problem - we become less of a target going forward. Those radical muslims know EXACTLY where to hit us to hurt us the most, but they don't because they need foreign expertise to develop and maintain the fields - BUT they do want control and revenue, just like their Saudi friends.
Heck! The muslim communities that say they "like us" probably think we're stupid to begin with (I know this for a fact BTW), so why keep playing the same game year in and year out - decade after decade! Change the game and change a lot of minds in the process. Creating our own energy solutions will save us money over the long haul.
Imagine what Al Queda would think if we (the US) vacated those reserves because we didn't need them anymore, and 20 million Chinese soldiers replaced us. I bet we wouldn't look too satanic afterall!
mkogrady
11/23/2009
Posts:234
As Obama implements the Bush strategy for Iraq, forces are drawing down; so the ongoing cost is decreasing to a much lower level and will continue to approach some lower Obama-determined limit over some period of time.
I'll also reiterate here that I'm a proponent energy independence and clean, renewable sources. But I'd like to see this discussed in a reasonable way where facts aren't invented to support one's notions of what should be done. I wouldn't take any politician's statement on any matter without fact checking it.
kstauff
11/23/2009
Posts:113
Your comments on separating subsidies and military overhead for securing petroleum in the middle east was duly noted. However, if we're to actually start weening ourselves off oil and onto newer cleaner domestic solutions, the end users (ie consumers and tax payers) must have a reasonable understanding of overall costs associated with each potential solution. Consumer buying patterns will drive future solutions in energy because business responds to making a buck. War or our National Interests are merely the ugly side of Business, no matter how you sell it.
My personal feelings are that we consumers are picking up the tab no matter whom we deal with. My posted figures only brings to light what some of the actual costs MAY BE for a single gallon of middle eastern derived gasoline.
If we spent $250 billion this year alone on some alternative - what might it do to strengthen alternative energy investments in this country.
* How many Windmills can we buy for $250 Billion
* How many Polysilicon Plants could be built with $250 Billion so solar is cheap enough to almost give away?
* Could we develop ANWR, or the shale natural gas deposits recently found with $250 Billion
* For $250 billion, you could buy about 7 million Toyota Prius's or GM Volts and do more for Battery development
* What about Mass Transit
* How about a few nuclear facilities or Geothermal Systems?
The list can go on for quite a while.
Don't forget - we're spending this $250 billion every year.
Now, put a cost on the 5 quarts of blood inside every US soldier who is securing our national interest overseas.
We ask a lot of those soldiers, and I want to make sure they're not placed in harms way because our nation has a lousy energy policy, and can't use the nations talent and funds we possess to get out of the mess.
mkogrady
11/24/2009
Posts:234
Even if the calculations were to be off, they still make the point.
gabrielg01
11/23/2009
Posts:418
While I generally agree with your position, the hyperbole you're using in the above statement does not help your case. There are clearly NOT 350+ bases in the ME, unless perhaps you're counting temporary encampments used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not energy related at all, and a significant part of the effort in Iraq was directed not just at energy security, but strategic security as well.
While we're discussing our basing strategy, perhaps we should also consider reducing our footprint in Europe and Japan. It's time these countries took a greater role in their own security. Of course, in doing so, we give up any leverage that we have gained in the past decades with regards to world security. Given time, these countries will likely find themselves at war with someone again (China? Russia? Iran? NK?), but at least we can save some of those dollars to put toward our new entitlements. Who needs security when you've got free health care?
kstauff
11/23/2009
Posts:113
But I was not shooting for exact figures, because I don't have them. I was merely sketching the problem: the oil market is totally skewed with subsidies, and meanwhile renewable energy projects are struggling to take hold. We have the wrong policies in place.
gabrielg01
11/23/2009
Posts:418
Roosevelt in 1945 offered US forces to secure the stuff back then, and there has been no real progress in getting out. As for peace keeping and our national interests - remember these people have been fighting with one another for centuries. A bunch of non-natives (regardless of their intentions) won't have too much influence in resolving their issues.
As for Japan and Europe - I agree that they should either make up their own security forces or ante up and help pay the costs.
mkogrady
11/23/2009
Posts:234
The ethanol industry tries to ignore the 'FACTS' but they're only deluding themselves. The energy density of E85 means at least 30-50% more fuel is required to travel the same distance. Yet the pump price of E85 doesn't accurately reflect that making it a more expensive fuel to use... a complete non starter! The fuel has NO SELLING POINT for motorists at all!
tsport100
11/21/2009
Posts:2
Mr Rissgaard must be personally testing the ethanol his company makes.
durs
11/23/2009
Posts:35
<b>This</b> magazine has reported on the potential trillion barrel Bakken formation in the Dakotas, as well as oil shale, liquefaction of coal and and natural gas trapped in shale formations. The United States is sitting on a hydrocarbon bonanza capable of powering US industry and transportation needs for centuries, not to mention spinning off enough royalty payments to eliminate the national debt.
Tapping this energy requires political will rather than technological development, and modest evolutionary advances in technology will push the "peak hydrocarbon" limit farther ahead as time goes on. Even real revolutionary advances in technology (such as solid oxide fuel cell technology that operates at low temperatures) will still depend on the high energy density of hydrocarbons to function in any practical way.
US jobs, US energy security, financial stability by paying off the national debt through royalty capture make tapping American energy resources a win-win (and this is even before the cost of overseas military power projection is taken into account).
One final note about deploying US forces overseas; the primary goal is to ensure global energy and economic stability, since much of the oil pumped from the Middle East goes to allied economies like India and Japan, or global players like China rather than the United States (which imports much more oil from Canada and Venezuela than it does from the Middle East). Perhaps the price of ensuring global stability and the economic development of nations holding billions of people is well worth the costs.
Thucydides
11/29/2009
Posts:16
I believe we have the technology to make this work.
dancrissco
12/19/2009
Posts:35