Extract from G. Bush's 2006 State of the Union Speech
Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.
This offers a promising premise; let's take a closer look.
1. The Initiative. Compare the $10 billion since 2001 (over 6 years) with the $2 billion the oil & gas industry receives just this year in tax breaks. The proposed funding amounts to less than 10% of annual consumption. Notice that conservation & efficiency are missing entirely. http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-2-148. To see more details on who gets what, go to http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2007/1pger_AdvancedEnergyInitiative.pdf. Despite saying he plans to invest more in clean coal, the details show an 11% decrease in funding. Nuclear fusion, however, gets a whopping 140%!
2. The Funding. Why just to the DOE? Is that standard practice or a way to control which businesses will get funding? Does that mean more no-bid contracts? Where is academia in all this? Our grad students & post docs are more motivated to research, this in turn leads our universities to greater achievements in science & technology.
3. Hydrogen Power. When hydrogen is used to transmit energy, only 51% reaches the end user. Compare that to the 75-85% from original electricity. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4CK7V91-2&_user=10&_origUdi=B6TH1-4NVT9XH-1&_fmt=high&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=858309026fe6b383ad78c72d798a58f9 Hydrogen-powered cars, under existing technology, is not cost effective due to infrastructure changes & lack of efficiency.
4. Ethanol & biofuels. New research is coming quickly,(http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50472) but ethanol as it is right now is not as efficient as existing technologies (producing lower fuel economy). E85, for instance, gets 30 fewer miles per tankful than gasoline. Cellulose ethanol, which comes from such things as harvested corn stalks or switchgrass, could replace up to 30% of transportation fuel (see http://www.consumerreports.org/, search by ethanol).
5. Energy Efficiency & Conservation. Even the DOE acknowledges that buildings account for 40% of all energy consumed. Even new homes could be 20-30% more efficient at no additional cost. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=pennergy_presentations. That points to the need for smaller homes, offices & other buildings that adopt cleaner & more efficient techniques. Check out new advances in insulation at http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/10/lets-talk-about-insulation-baby/.
6. Solar & Wind Power. This initiative appears to increase funding for solar & wind power (see 2nd link in #1 above), but note the ITER fusion project increases by 140%--that's nuclear, baby. In a recent survey (http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Poll_Shows_Bipartisan_Support_111207.html), 93% of conservatives agreed that energy independence "should be the government's top priority." Wind has one of the highest payback ratios & could generate more than twice the electricity generated today. Why does wind, one of the cleanest powers, get 13% while nuclear, with it's problems with spent fuel rods & catastrophic (not to mention terrorist attractiveness) powers, gets 140%? Note that, according to the nonprofit American Solar Energy Society, 40 million jobs could be created in renewable energy by 2030. http://www.ases.org/press/2007_jobs_report.htm.
7. Coal. It's interesting that the speech above indicates investing more in clean coal. According to the funding report, clean coal research drops by 11%! The US has more coal than any other country in the world, but can we really "clean" it without adding CO2 emissions? Coal can be turned into Liquid Fuel (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5356683). Utility companies plan to build more than 100 new coal-burning plants over the next 10-15 years. If they use dirty technology, that means an additional 6 million tons of CO2 each year--the same as 2 million cars. The current dubious scheme is to pipe those emissions underground. To read more on this, go to http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal1.asp. To view additional analyses, go to http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/12/173831/909 and http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp.
The bottom line is we need to take a closer look at all proposed initiatives before jumping the gun.
No comments:
Post a Comment