The great American con: Ending foreign oil dependence
Could lithium end US dependence upon foreign oil within 10 years?
Foreign oil independence within 10 years?
“And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” — President Barack Obama
That’s one campaign promise the President will have to break.
Nevertheless, is ending foreign oil dependence within 10 years even possible? Even if money were no object, is it even plausible – via any technology or combination of technologies – to end US dependence upon foreign oil within a decade?
For instance, could enough batteries be produced within 10 years to end US dependence upon foreign oil? Could lithium be mined and manufactured at such a pace in just 10 years? Would producing countries even agree to such scale? Could a significant amount of America’s several hundred million fleet of vehicles be converted into plug-ins within the next decade? Or, is such scale simply impossible in such a short amount of time, etc?
What about natural gas and domestic oil, even coal and cellulosic ethanol? Could America ensure enough supply to end US dependence upon foreign oil within 10 years, as well as enough supply to last at least a few more decades until alternative energies could be brought fully online? Or, is such an increased level of drilling impossible to achieve in such a short period of time?
Are such studies available?
The Department of Defense engages in numerous war games under every kind of scenario imaginable. Has the possibility of ending foreign oil dependence under many different scenarios also been extrapolated? If not, might it not be time?
Perhaps it’s just me, but I’d love to see a few scenarios – some real world options – that achieve foreign oil independence within 10 years, 15 years, 20 years etc. What would each plan cost if the plan were put into action today? What would be each plan’s CO2 score, pollution score, etc? What different combination of technologies could be utilized? How many jobs would be created? What are the ROI possibilities?
Is ending foreign oil dependence just a political con? Or, might it actually be possible to not just end foreign oil dependence within a decade, but to also create new jobs, reduce pollution and quickly reap a huge return on our investment? Might ending foreign oil dependence be the greatest economic stimulus ever?
Isn’t it time that pork-loving, dividing-and-conquering politicians provide some transparent and honest options for the future of American energy policy? Isn’t it time we the people demand such information from OUR representatives?
[...] ending oil dependence, particularly foreign oil dependence, especially in the short term (See The great American con: Ending foreign oil dependence ). For me, it is no longer just about change, but the time it takes to achieve [...]
i fully agree, larry, that would could be doing a lot better with our bail out/stimulus money, as well as our tax incentive money. in these political times, honesty and transparency are harder and harder to come by, but it’s going to be the only way to proactively achieve the people’s consent for real change.
well.. I certainly think a reasonable near term goal is to upgrade the grid so that it can dynamically load-balance diverse power sources… even thousands of very small solar panels in applications where the home sends the excess into the grid.
Right now – the grid is really not set up to do this.
The solar and wind is really wasted because they are unable to modulate the base power so that the supplemental power from solar/wind can be used to supplant base power.
It takes hours…days to ramp up or down a coal plant or a nuke and the grid is set up on that premise.
It’s basically a manually network.
If we REALLY wanted to talk bail-out/stimulus/etc.. then having the govt spend money on upgrading the grid – would be a far better use of the money that giving credits for plug-ins…
as usual my 2 cents worth.
smurf -
I’m not sure. I caught this article on over the weekend. This is just one quote.
“Experts on the nation’s electricity system point to a frighteningly steep increase in non-disaster-related outages affecting at least 50,000 consumers.
During the past two decades, such blackouts have increased 124 percent — up from 41 blackouts between 1991 and 1995, to 92 between 2001 and 2005, according to research at the University of Minnesota.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/08/09/smart.grid/index.html?hpt=C1
Larry, in my opinion, is right. Only a new super grid, or possibly some crazy distributed grid – although probably not – can enable solar to have a major impact nationwide. That’s not an argument against such a grid. If such a grid is the most timely, cost-effective path to energy independence, then let’s make it our moonshot.
But if there are better interim solutions that could, ultimately, fund a such a super grid with their cost-savings, then let’s take that path.
As Tom has been hitting upon. Let’s just have a well defined goal with well defined solutions for achieving that goal.
Again, I give Obama a lot of credit for being a big thinker regarding this issue, but his solutions thus far are still far too political and partisan. This has to be an issue driven by sound logic.
Perhaps I’m terribly naive, but if a plan were put forward – based upon logic with logical solutions towards achieving – I absolutely believe the people would buy into it. Again, perhaps that’s just my naivete, but I’m sticking with it until proven wrong.
Tom-
“First of all there is no such thing as an ENERGY PLAN for our country.”
That’s what bugs me, and yes we should – including me – better define what we mean. Absolutely. I guess that is the nut that I was trying to crack a bit in this post.
Ultimately, I don’t care what the plan is. I’m a big hybrid to plug-in hybrid to EV and possibly fuel cell plan kind of guy – but implemented intelligently (which I don’t see today). However, if it were realized that biofueled ICE engines were the most cost-effective path to foreign oil dependence AND that hybrids were a waste, I would still support the plan. I’m just seeking logic and quality goals based upon that logic.
Most important, I’m seeking a GOAL. I’ll give Obama credit for understanding this idea of a big goal and using CO2 as a metric for this goal. I just don’t believe in that metric. I think it can be part of the formula, but I don’t think it is THE formula. And, if I’m wrong, and CO2 is the best metric, then America would be far better served with a carbon tax, not cap and trade. Congress, the government et al have proven time and time again that if it isn’t kept simple then it will lead to massive waste, fraud, etc. without really accomplishing the goal.
Thanks Marcel. I was wondering, especially in light of the BioBug.
Is most of this biowaste just being wasted at the moment, or do other industries use this waste for any other purposes?
Much discussion always revolves around efficiency – using what we already have more efficiently. If all this biowaste is just being, well, wasted, that doesn’t seem very efficient.
Thanks Smurf
In summer they are from 1 PM to 8 PM M-F
In winter they are 9 to 5 AM & 9 to 5 PM M-F
does every pay increased rates during these hours?
do you happen to know how much you pay per KWH during non-peak …and peak?
sounds like if someone had a plug-in, that they charged overnight – that they’d want to wait until 8pm in the summer?
thanks again.
Oops.
SRP – Salt River Project.
SRP – Ralt River Project.
Peak hours have two seasons in PHX.
In summer they are from 1 PM to 8 PM M-F
In winter they are 9 to 5 AM & 9 to 5 PM M-F
thanks Smurf… what’s the SRP stand for?
also.. do you know what the charges are for “time of use”?
Is it preset for certain hours… or does in vary according to demand – and do you know at any point in time how much is being charged?
Larry,
I live in Phoenix and SRP is my power company.
My smart meter was installed about 12 months after my solar panels. (Not sure if there if the two are related).
In Arizona, we have “flat rate” plans and “time of use” plans. Time of use plans charge different rates for peak and off-peak usage.
With my smart meter, from a web page, I am able to look at “daily usage”. There is a tab on the web page for “trending” which estimates what you next bill will be. Additionally, the web page keeps a 3 year history of monthly usage and billing.
US currently produces less than 9 million barrels a day of petroleum (the US is still the third largest producers of oil on Earth) and imports more than 12 million barrels a day of petroleum. Only 22% (2.6 million barrels) of America’s oil imports come from the Persian Gulf region.
Up to 388 million dry tons a year of urban biowaste, 325 million tons of forest refuse, and 597 million tons of agricultural waste could be exploited from our cities, forest, and current agricultural acreage to produce carbon-neutral biofuels (gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, and jet fuel), an equivalent of approximately 4 million barrels of oil per day (19% of total US daily petroleum consumption).
So carbon neutral biowaste from urban and rural areas could end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Hey Smurf – where do you live? Does the power company adjust the rates so that at peak load, the cost goes up ?
Do you have the ability to look at real time info and trend data , etc?
Smart Meters are part of the Smart Grid – but the Smart Grid knows how much power is coming in from hundreds, thousands of solar wind generators and adjusts the base load plants accordingly.
Part of the problem with the base load – coal and Nukes is that unless they are specifically designed to be able to do so – they cannot modulate very well. It can take hours to bring power up or lower it down.
And as our host questioned – “Could a more distributed grid scenario make sense”.
Distributed generation is/will be important to our overall plan of achieving energy independence.
However, make no mistake that my above sentence contains two inconsistent statements. “plan” and “achieving energy independence”
First of all there is no such thing as an ENERGY PLAN for our country. No goals, no objectives, no strategic framework, nothing. We just throw some money here and then some more over there. No one has any idea what the GOALS are or should be.
How about “achieving energy independence”. What does this mean to you? No imported oil? Does that also mean we no longer import oil from Canada and/or Mexico? Does it mean we no longer use more energy than we can produce regardless of the source of that energy? Does it mean that we can’t trade something we have for something else that contains exactly the same about of energy but is in a different form? An example of this would be U.S. grain for Russian nuclear fuel. Would that also qualify since both sides of the equation are equal?
I am not trying to make this a complex issue but depending on WHO you are and WHERE you live can make a big difference.
Another example – if you live in the Midwest you most likely breath a small quantity of coal dust/ash daily. Every once in a while you look forward to the rain to wash things off and freshen up the air. If you live in Southern California, you most likely look forward to the rain for the same reasons but what might be more important to you is to reduce your water bill. Why – your air is cleaner now than it has been in 50 years. Why is this? Because Southern California has some nuclear power, some hydro, some natural gas and imported power from other states. There are no coal plants left in Southern California used for the generation of electricity.
So yes distributed generation is important. Should we have and energy plan – of course we should. Should we define what we mean when we say energy independence so everyone is on the same page? Makes sense to me – how about you?
Tom G.
The grid is coming along much quicker than you think.
With the growth in residential solar the last couple years, power companies are making the necessary adjustments to accomodate the multiple diverse generation of power and adding “smart” meters to monitor it.
I have a “smart meter” on my residenace which not only tracks power in both directions, but let’s me check my daily usage on line…
the “grid” is a CF that can be manually adjusted to the presence of New major generating facilities but cannot automatically adapt to multiple dynamic sources.
We basically have a whole bunch of engineers and technicians that know how to switch the power levers in most scenarios except when the grid becomes overloaded or unexpected failures cause units to go offline – then we have power outages… because the grid cannot automatically reconfigure to adapt to dynamically changing conditions.
In other words the grid is not set up for myriad multiple generation sources but rather just a few primary major generators – and peaker plants that can be brought online when the base power is being over taxed.
Solar Power is now cheaper than nukes – depending on who you believe but we can’t use solar and wind – not because they are not viable sources of power but because the grid cannot easily and automatically adapt to their presence.
We will NEVER be able to use Solar or Wind until we re-do the grid.
If anything is holding us back – it is this – but you rarely hear anyone saying this is the reason we can’t use solar/wind.
Instead what you hear is that Solar/Wind is not dependable – but think about it.
As long as either of them are generating power – they reduce the need for coal or even Nuke baseload – AS LONG AS you can bring on the coal/nukes when you need to but we cannot.. because the grid is a 100+-year old anachronism.
Tom-
It’s not just the waste that is the issue. It’s the cost and simplicity, especially if we’re talking about “within a decade”.
Where is that 4.5 quads coming from? According to what I’ve read, in order to utilize that kind of solar power, minimally, a new grid would be needed, such as what Al Gore has proposed in the past. Yet, conservative estimates for such a grid are $1/2 trillion, minimally. I’ve seen other estimates that claim at least a trillion.
Could a more distributed grid scenario make sense, or is there not enough profit in such a plan? Or do the political powers demand certain kickbacks that favor one plan over another, even if less timely and cost-effective? Minimally, shouldn’t multiple paths to 4.5 quads be investigated?
LIkewise, then all cars have to be converted into battery powered vehicles. With only about 12 millions sales per year and several hundred million vehicles on the road, the conversion will take decades. If we converted old vehicles into plug-ins, the costs would be several thousand, minimally, per vehicle.
Suddenly we’re talking massive chunks of money, fast, if this is a “within a decade” solution.
Then there are the batteries? Where are they coming from? No contracts for that amount of lithium have been secured and every country with major lithium supplies has indicated that it’s not going to be that easy. The manufacturing capabilities for such production are essentially non-existant.
The point is, going solar/wind/EVs will probably take decades to end foreign oil dependence. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s a bad plan, but is it the best plan? Could their be an interim bridge to this plan?
Are their interim solutions that can be achieved much sooner at a far cheaper cost? Is pure solar/wind really the smartest path? Could a combination of algae fuels and waste replace oil much sooner and cheaper. From what I’ve recently, it’s beginning to look very plausible. The Bio-Bug, for instance, is beginning to shape up into a pretty interesting story.
Why can’t their be comprehensive, objective studies comparing costs, ROI, timelines, etc. of a number of different paths based upon a number of different timelines?
For instance, perhaps we learn that such and such a plan could end foreign oil dependence in 10 years at a cost of $1 trillion. After 15 years, the plan has paid for itself, plus interest. After 20 years it has funded a new power grid, new solar plant and unlimited tax credits that make 300 mile plug-ins cheaper than similarly-sized gasoline vehicles. After 25 years the investment is just paying down debt.
If we found that natural gas, just as an example, could provide such a bridge, then wouldn’t it be worthwhile to implement? I’m not saying natural gas can do that, but maybe there is a plan out there that can. To me, on one is looking for the best plan to energy independence, they are looking for the one that benefits their interests the most.
Here’s is what I consider a more realistic goal:
Within 10 years, manufacture alternative fuel vehicles, and build alternative fuel infrastructures, so that average Americans have the option to purchase “affordable” vehicles that consume no foreign oil.
Think we can do that in 10 years?
Yesterday I posted the following [in part] on a blog site dealing with renewable energy. I have copied it here but what I wrote isn’t as interesting as what an anonymous responder posted – see second paragraph.
Tom G post [in part]
Did you know that the average power plant is only about 30-35% efficient. That is like going to the grocery store and spending $100 for food and then coming home and throwing away $65.
Anonymous poster [in part]
We lose 80% of the energy in oil in the internal combustion engine and refining and transport to use. Only 20% of the energy moves the vehicle. That’s why 4.5 quad of electricity from sunlight and wind supplied to electric motors/cars can replace 17 quads of primary oil. 80% of that oil in the Gulf never would have moved the cars, either.
You can read the full article by Ken Zweibel on Renewable Energy World by using the below link. He is one of the authors of a plan for powering the entire U.S. with renewable power published about a year ago. The post at the following link is about how difficult our legal systems is making something desirable like renewable energy to be implemented.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/08/grandfathering-our-problems-blocking-our-solutions#readercomments
Tom G.
I think NoBama and JohnM have it about right.
Tom g.
Has anyone defined Energy Independence? Does the energy used in another country to make steel or happy meal toys count?
You can achieve any goal by changing what it means.
The technology is available to end all oil consumption.
The will is not.
Only global catastrophe will curb our “oil problem” (like a heroin problem). People feel entitled to the way of life and delude themselves into thinking there will be some magic technological fix for energy and fixing the environment. The fatal belief is too wide-spread and severe for our society to deal with. With the spin our irresponsibly trusted national news networks have, there is little if any hope for orderly transition to a clean-energy sipping America that has beaten the fossil-fuel addiction. I hope I’m wrong.
So, you do believe that foreign oil independence within a decade is achievable? There’s a whole mix of studies I’ve seen, but none seem to break down into a decade or even two decade time frame.
Seriously, couldn’t some amazing case studies be done for just a few million at the most? I mean even if it cost $10 million to thoroughly investigate this issue, isn’t it worth it?
Likewise, this really isn’t even Obama’s domain, although he could use his pulpit to push for such analysis. Really, however, it should be Congress doing this, they already have such committees for such purposes. Moreover, it seems to me that the DOE could easily include this in their analysis.
Opinion polls suggest that foreign energy dependence is an issue that is at least on the average American’s radar. Somehow it seems to me that some politician could tap into this issue, or some kind of grass roots movement. Something…..
The concept is totally possible. However, in the real world it will never happen. The politicians get paid by the lobbyists and lawyers to do their bidding. The war machine keeps cranking out soldiers to die in order to keep their enterprise going. And the underlying (sometime blatant) racism in this country will never let a non-white person gain any sort of initiative.
Our only choices are to individually go off-grid or move to Canada/France.