As you read this, keep in mind that I have no quarrel with exploring for new oil and gas. My argument is with those who flat-out lie about the urgency of opening up more land and water to exploration and production.

The oil that might be produced from now-restricted sources would not impact gasoline prices in the near term - near meaning 10-12 years.

It also bothers me that all of the screaming and gnashing of teeth is a canard whose purpose is to divert attention from the best real sources of energy:

1. Conservation. As one small example, universally inflating tires properly and carefully tuning engines WILL save 4x as much petroleum as can be produced by opening up ALL restricted offshore drilling in the USA. Who agrees? The US Department of Energy, the US Department of Transportation, REPUBLICAN Governor of Florida Charlie Crist, REPUBLICAN Governor of California Arnold Schwartzenager, those leftist pinkos at NASCAR, and the anti-progress commies at the American Petroleum Institute- and thousands of actual experts (even many of those who are owned and operated by the oil industry). Total cost: $0 (you were going to get that tune-up anyway).
2. There are thousands of other little things that people can do every day to conserve energy. Total cost: $0.
3. There are hundreds of bigger things that people can do to conserve energy. Total cost: $some. But insulating buildings, using energy-efficent electrical products, orienting houses to take advantage of free sunshine, and so on.... all have short pay-back periods.
   
4. Reopening old oil wells that were capped back when it cost to much to extract the oil that sold for $10-$15 per barrel. That supply dwarfs the supply in the proven reservesin our offshore zones. And ANWAR's small reserves don't even register on any scale that metters. Cost to the consumer: $0. Cost to the oil industry: much less than the cost of new development.
5. Alternative energy sources: Oilman T. Boone Pickens and billionaires like Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett are all investing in the growing alternative energy industries.... especially wind power.
   
6. Alternative energy sources: In Germany, ALL new houses have built-in energy-producing equipment (mostly solar, in gray, gloomy Germany!). Sure it costs something, but the payback is under 10 years... and German law (and US law) require power distribution companies to buy unused home-produced energy that is fed into the grid. That shortens that payback period.
7. Alternative energy sources: Who holds most of the US patents and produces most of the equipment for solar-to-electricity production - and have been in the industry for 0ver 30 years? Atlantic-Richfield (ARCO)
   
8. Alternative energy sources: Bio-fuels (no, not that boondoggle corn-based ethanol). Ethanol from carbohydate-rich plants. Soy (even Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel promoted soy oil). Pond Scum: one of the most promising sources being researched is algae. Think about it: today's oil is not based on dinosaurs; it's based on ancient algae and plankton. Grow algae, but don't bother to wait millions of years to harvest the carbon in those plants; scrape it out of your now-useless backyard pool and sell it to the next Exxon. Then go back and grow more.
   

Opening up new oilfields will not produce any usuable petroleum for 7-10 years, and supplies would have a negligble effect on gasoline prices only after 12-15 years. That's 12-15 years better devoted to developing energy sources which are better, cleaner, cheaper.

Considering the awesome business opportunities that await entrepreneurs, why is our government policy focused on promoting old-school oil and all but destroying alternatives? Do I really have to tell you? More significantly, why don't oil companies use their massive resources to corner the market on new energy sources AND extend the profitable life of their oil assets?

The reason is short-term thinking and greed. The people who fund big projects no longer consider the long run. They want it all now! The gimme generation is worried about next quarter's stock price and next quarter's bonuses. Screw you and your children and children's children. The gimme guys died with the most toys, and the future gets to clean up their messes.

What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions?

Labels: algae, alternative energy, bio-fuel, biofuel, entrepreneur, ethanol, personal responsibility, profit, responsibility, solar, soy, wind

In April 2008 I took John McBush to task for his unwarranted image as a maverick. Now I will correct him on an error of fact that he makes. To be fair, it is a mistake that many, many people make - even people who think of themselves as environmentalists.

Before he was a candidate for the nomination to run for president as a republican, GW McCain said "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve our air quality."

That was then.

But, in time for the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, "I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects"

White man speak with forked tongue.

Worse, his knowledge of science is faulty.

"ethanol ... greenhouse reduction effects". Wrong! Where, oh, where to begin?

Everyone take notes. There will be a quiz on this.

1. Ethanol is a carbon-based source of energy. For you technically minded, its chemical formula is C₂H₅OH.
   
   
2. ANY and EVERY Carbon-based fuel releases energy AND CO₂ (Also known as Carbon Dioxide). CO₂ is a major component of our greenhouse gas problem.
   
   • The "C₂" part is the Carbon component of ethanol.
   • "H₅" is Hydrogen
   • "OH" means that a part of the ethanol molecule is a hydroxide, and consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
     
   • The nice thing about the H and OH portions of ethanol is that when burned , as in an internal combustion engine, the by-product includes water - that's the sort-of good news. The bad news is that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
   • Much worse - in terms of greenhouse gases - is that when the carbon in ethanol is oxidized (when it burns), it releases energy and forms Carbon Dioxide.
   • In other words, when you burn ethanol to release the energy contained therein, you release two greenhouse gases. There is a Law of Nature that covers the topic. It is inevitable.
     
     
3. Ethanol-as-fuel is a hot topic. But when politicians address Ethanol-as-fuel, they are referring Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn, which translates into votes in the Farm Belt and campaign funds from such agribiz giants as Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill. They want you to believe that Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is a good idea, when the real issue is getting elected/re-elected.
   
   Ethanol-as-fuel is probably a good idea. Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is not just a bad idea, it's worse: it's a distraction from real issues regarding energy.
   
   In today's agriculture, corn is expensive to grow. From a financial viewpoint, it requires good soil, huge amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, and massive fuel-guzzling farm equipment.
   
   From any energy viewpoint, all of those items (except the soil) require petroleum to produce, transport, and use.
   
   In today's refinery system, corn is an expensive raw material for producing an energy source. It requires a lot of energy input, e.g., heat - to produce the ethanol.
   
   All things considered, it requires about 3 gallons of fuel to create, transport, and deliver 4 gallons of fuel at the gas pump. And - those 4 gallons of fuel do not produce as many miles as 4 gallons of petroleum-based fuel.
   
   That's just the tip of the iceberg. As corn production is diverted to ethanol production, corn is taken from the food supply. That causes food prices (and feed prices for livestock) to increase. Reducing the corn supply also impacts other parts of the food network. We are beginning to see shortages and price hikes of food other than corn. For example, if grain production resources were diverted to corn production, the price of wheat will shoot up; in turn, prices of wheat-based foods will skyrocket (you heard it here first).
   
   Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn just doesn't make economic or ecological sense.
   

Do we need alternative sources of energy? Absolutely. BUT! Everyone needs to understand that

• substituting one carbon-based energy source for another is NOT a solution to the critical greenhouse gas / global warming problems that we face
• among Ethanol-as-fuel endeavors, ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn benefits politicians and agribiz. It does little, if anything for the rest of us.
• While any ethanol production will help reduce oil imports, it is more than anything else, a distraction from the pursuit of REAL energy solutions.
  

How do we solve our growing energy, dependence on foreign oil, and pollution (greenhouse gas) problems?

• We can't fall into the trap of seeking a panacea - a one size fits all - approach.
• Our biggest - best - easiest first step is conservation; we need a comprehensive national program to use less and recycle more.
• Make better use of "local" oil. Consider this: 40% of US oil production is exported. Reigning that in won't solve the greenhouse gas problem, but it would most certainly put a dent in oil imports. How can it make sense to export oil and import expensive oil that comes with strings attached. There are serious geopolitical issues involved in being at the mercy of people who despise us and use our money (money that we paid for foreign oil) to support terrorists who will most certainly attack us repeatedly.
• Develop good alternative sources of energy - preferably sources that don't carry baggage such as greenhouse gas production and destruction of the natural environment. Interestingly, developing and producing these alternative energy sources will help in another big way: it will encourage entrepreneurship and will create new jobs right here in the good ol' US of A.
  

Labels: alternative energy, carbon dioxide, carbon-based fuel, co2, conservation, ethanol, maverick, mcbush, mccain, misconception, misunderstanding