The Oil Drum | CNN: Bush's SotU to Focus on Energy

81 comments on CNN: Bush's SotU to Focus on Energy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on January 30, 2006 - 2:06pm

Pimental is not discredited. I think his analysis is more realistic in the light of peak oil than the recent one supposedly "discrediting" his work. Of course you have to consider the energy cost of the farm equipment needed to grow ethanol.

And really, the fact that people are still arguing about it shows it's not a solution. If it is energy-positive, it's not by much.

Right now, we're living a Paris Hilton-like life, supported by Mother Nature's trust fund. Only it's running out soon, and we're going to have to start working for living. We can argue about whether that job at McDonald's will pay $6.00 or $8.00 an hour, but either way, it's not going to support us in the style to which we are accustomed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on January 30, 2006 - 2:51pm

You are correct that we are living off "capital" of fossil fuels, and this cannot go on much longer.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the recent SCIENCE article that demolished Pimental's position was peer-reviewed. Pimental's recent work is not only not peer-reviewed, it has obvious re-cycling of old data, serious examples of suppressed evidence and is clearly "political" and one-sided both in its premises and its conclusions. I do not know of a single notable biologist or chemist who supports Pimental's work. Do you?

Clearly, ethanol is not the only answer and may not even be a big part of the answer. But if ethanol for automobile (and even some aviation) fuel is such a bad idea, then why does it work so well in Brazil? Are Brazilians subject to different laws of physics and chemistry than we are?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on January 30, 2006 - 3:01pm

Brazilians are subject to a sugar-cane climate.

FWIW, I'm only a mild ethanol skeptic. I think that's a rational position to be in, given that this is not a free market activity by any means. Not only is ethanol production subsidized in the metaphorical sense by fossil fuel infrastructure, it is also subsidized in the literal sense.

Thinking about it now, if ethanol is not cheap and easy to do, relying sole on inexpensive diesel and natural gas ... how big a subsidy are you going to need when those things become dear?

Maybe it will work, but IMO we should drop the subsidies and let it walk on its own.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on January 30, 2006 - 3:39pm

Brazil does have a competitive advantage in sunshine, but that is not a big deal, if you do the numbers. Sugar cane may be better than corn--but maybe not, if you take account of the fact that you can get a lot of good oil out of corn and none out of cane.

Why feed our corn to pigs so that we eat more pork to clog up our arteries? If we are going to grow corn--and for political reasons it seems almost certain that we will continue to do so on a large scale--then why not use much of it for ethanol and biodiesel?

BTW, I am no great fan of corn. On my land I grow jerusalem artichokes and get the benefits of inulin as opposed to starch or sugar. O.K., I agree it is easier to make ethanol out of cane than out of anything else, but you can make ethanol out of most things that grow and that have both carbon and hydrogen in them. I'm a big fan of stich grass and may try a plot of that this spring.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Paul in Bradenton on January 30, 2006 - 3:07pm

Hi, first post here. I recently read about Brazil's ethanol production, and how many of their automobiles can run on anywhere from 0-100% ethanol/gasoline ratio. Excellent technology that certainly has a place in the US down the road.

With regard to the "different laws of physics" question, the answer is of course "no," but the reality is that they use sugar cane to produce ethanol, which provides a much higher EROI than corn. I think that's the main reason that it is so successful in Brazil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on January 30, 2006 - 3:31pm

That article did not "demolish" Pimental's position. It was a "review of literature," that analyzed six previous studies, including Pimental's. The "flaw" it found with Pimental's work is that Pimental included the energy cost of the tractors in the calculation. I think Pimental's is actually the correct position. (To be fair, the energy cost of the equipment, etc., should also be included in the calculations of oil's EROEI, when making comparisons.)

But if ethanol for automobile (and even some aviation) fuel is such a bad idea, then why does it work so well in Brazil? Are Brazilians subject to different laws of physics and chemistry than we are?

No. They simply aren't dealing with a peak oil situation yet. They started making ethanol because sugar prices were low, not because they were running out of oil.

I think Brazil's situation is going to change. There are certainly some clouds on the horizon. As it is, sugar is at record highs:

Hoarding feared as sugar prices surge

Sugar prices hit sour note for foodmakers

Appetite for ethanol strains Brazilian cane millers

Agriculture (along with transportation) is our most oil-dependent industry. Farmers are already feeling the strain of high energy prices:

Costs draining farms

They aren't going to be able to grow enough ethanol to replace gasoline and diesel, and grow enough food for us.

Ethanol may have a place. Perhaps as aviation fuel, since there is no substitute for liquid fuel there.

But I really, really hope we don't try to use ethanol to replace oil on a widespread basis. One, it's not sustainable. Two, it would be a very, very bad thing, if Third World nations start growing ethanol for us when they should be growing food for themselves.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Glenn on January 30, 2006 - 9:32pm

I guess I really won't truly believe in the whole sustainable / positive ROI for ethanol unless it is produced in a relatively closed system that can give off surplus energy and require few inputs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on January 30, 2006 - 10:55pm

So the farmers are griping about the cost of natural gas to run the pumps they use? And the tractors? They could perfectly well run these things with engines burning directly-no liquid fiddlefaddle- on solid biomass, pellets of corn stover , switchgrass or what have you. Or is it forbidden to even think of making an engine (stirling) to do this because it HASN'T BEEN DONE YET? Just think of all the other things thrown about with great glee and celebration here that haven't been done yet. Dammit.

Relative to a pebble bed hydrogen reactor, this one is kindergarten.

And while I am exuding a bit of bile before bedtime, why not use electric vehicles with batteries that can be instantly removed and replaced by fresh ones, instead of slumping into a collective fit of angst about short range and all the delay of recharging electric vehicles? Your dashboard indicator shows lobat, you swish into the friendly local battery station and chunk-kachunk, a robot has removed your lobat and pushed in a full one, and off you go in 27 seconds flat. The local utility owns the battery.

And you have a weak heat engine on board to humbly sneak you into the battery station if you are too busy talking on your cell to see that lobat light.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Twilight on January 30, 2006 - 11:02pm

Infrastructure - make small, efficient conventional cars (diesel), and spend the infrastructure money on rail. Hoard the fuel we still will have for agriculture, supplemented by biofuels where appropriate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

scorned by the cockroach on January 31, 2006 - 2:01am

Bile belongs in the digestive tract. I respecfully suggest the blog can do without it. Actually, it was done a long time ago. We called them Steam Traction Engines. I personally think that if things get bad enough, most of the remaining examples will be put back into the fields. I don't know much about Stirlings, but from what I learned at wikipedia, it appears they are not too well suited to tractors. They might possibly be useable in a combine. The thing is, a substantial percentage of farmers have absolutely no foreseeable prospect of being extended enough credit to purchase any NEW piece of major farm equipment. So, it wouldn't matter to them if your Stirlings were available or not. I spoke to my nephew this morning. He still hasn't convinced his banker to lend him enough money to plant a crop this spring. I'll take one of those robo-bat cars, if you're buying and you plonk one of those battery-bots down at every place where I might need one.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on January 31, 2006 - 6:11am

You are right about the bile. Sorry about that. ( note-never write anything after 10PM lobrain light goes on). As for stirlings and tractors, the wiki is wrong- way out of date and way incomplete. They would work wonderfully on tractors- far better than steam ever did. I spent some time thinking about what should be changed in that wiki entry, and might try to bring it up to date- or talk better people onto doing it.

I know farmers are strapped- I live with them. But who makes the tractors, and where do they get their capital? And doesn't capital do one thing as well as another? And who decides what it does?

No, the guy who is out to make money owns the battery and the charging-replacement station, and charges what it is worth for the service- just like the old gas station. That turns nuclear into transportation, and whether that is good or bad I have not the wisdom to know.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on January 31, 2006 - 10:43am

I do not know the source of the claim that sugar prices are at a world high. This is nonsense. There is a world glut of sugar, and correcting for inflation the price of sugar is way, way below historic highs.

Before making assertions, it helps to check facts.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on January 31, 2006 - 11:36am

Not all-time highs, but 25-year highs. Prices are so high it's hurting businesses. Here's another article:

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=134033&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=28317

LONDON: Sugar is a star among commodity markets, with prices at 25-year peaks and possibly heading higher as investors see potential to divert more cane to make biofuel.

The Dubai international sugar conference last week heard a keynote speaker say a larger share of sugar cane in top grower Brazil will likely be used to make the biofuel ethanol instead of edible sugar in the next crop cycle.

Tom McNeill, senior partner of sugar brokerage and consultant Societe J Kingsman, said as much as 55 per cent of Brazilian cane could be allocated to ethanol in 2006/07 from 52.5pc in 2005/06, due to growing demand for the biofuel for use in "flex-fuel" cars in Brazil.

While traders attending the conference expressed scepticism over such a high share of cane being diverted to ethanol in 2006/07, they said sentiment that increased cane would be used for biofuel has been one of several factors driving up sugar prices to successive highs.

Raw sugar prices, which rose over 60pc last year, finished on Friday at a fresh 25-year high for the sixth day running on supply fears and investment fund buying, with analysts saying the market should punch to even higher ground this week.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on January 31, 2006 - 4:05pm

Economists correct for price-level changes as best they can. "Real" prices are in "constant dollars" corrected for price level changes, often using a concept called the "Gross Domestic Product" deflator. Other price level indecices can be used, such as the "Consumer Price Index."

In real terms, the price of sugar is far, far below where it was in 1950, far lower than 1900, much, much lower than 1850, and also much lower than in 1800.

Beware of business journalism. Sensationalism makes headlines. Few journalists took Econ 101, or if they did they flunked.

In regard to agricultural commodities, the EU alone each year produces a mountain of surplus sugar to go away with its mountains of surplus butter, surplus wheat, and ocean of surplus wine. Because of price supports, most agricultural products are produced with big surpluses in most years. Grain elevators so overflow with grain in the U.S. Midwest that thousands of tons are dumped out in the open, on the ground, because the grain elevators are full. With price supports above equilibrium price, we always and inevitably get surpluses.

To get a surplus of crude oil would be easy: Just put a price floor of $200 a barrel under it, and within a year there would be such a huge surplus that wells would be shutting down left and right.

Also, to creat a shortage of, say, gasoline, all you'd have to do is put a price ceiling of $1.00 a gallon on it. Results guaranteed--Econ 101 once again.

In regard to sugar, go to Zimbabwe, go to Jamaica, go anywhere in cane-growing countries, and what do you find? Idle labor, rusting machetes, land covered in weeds. The price of sugar has been kept down by the huge subsidies that have created huge surpluses. What the world needs now is much higher prices for sugar. Increased prices for ethanol would help. Possibly no single change in prices would more reduce malnutrition and poverty and unemployment in the third world than a doubling in both the price and the output of sugar.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on January 31, 2006 - 5:04pm

In real terms, the price of sugar is far, far below where it was in 1950, far lower than 1900, much, much lower than 1850, and also much lower than in 1800.

IOW, agricultural products were a lot more expensive before the oil-powered "Green Revolution."

That is precisely why agriculture products - biofuels - cannot bail us out.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on January 31, 2006 - 6:38pm

The 300 year price series for sugar is better documented than any other historical price series that I am aware of. For hundreds of years the technology of harvesting and refining sugar changed little; it was and is a labor intensive and not a capital or energy intensive business.

Go where cane is grown and cut. Talk to some workers. Visit a refinery. Or if you have no time to come into contact with the real world, then read a good textbook of economic history.

BTW the price of potable 100 proof rum in Tortola is about $4.00 a gallon (at retail, including bottle and taxes)--same as the price of a gallon of milk. Internal combustion engines run better on 160 proof ethanol than they do on 90 octane gasoline. With the price of crude at $70 for 42 gallons (which is how much a barrel of oil contains), ethanol for fuel needs no subsidies--regardless of whether it is made from cane, beets, corn, switchgrass, milo or whatever. Nevertheless, to help make the transition away from petroleum and to give incentives to build an infrastructure for E-85 a strong economic case can be made for ethanol subsidies (with a sunset provision).

In regard to Pimantel's work, there is no substitute for reading the original artile in SCIENCE. It is a free country. You are allowed to believe in cold fusion, the phlogiston theory of combustion, the nonreality of evolution, or any other belief you care to hold--including a belief in the validity of Pimentel's results. I value our freedom and respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but I also believe in the power of scientific methods to correct errors.

SCIENCE is a peer-reviewed publication. Where are Pimentel's peer-reviewed publications?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on January 31, 2006 - 7:28pm

HC&S (Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar) cultivates over 37,000 acres of sugarcane, harvesting about half each year. HC&S produces over 200,000 tons of raw sugar and more than 70,000 tons of molasses annually.
AG OPERATIONS
Land Preparation - Fields receive 2 to 4 passes by a 36-inch harrow implement to break up the soil and facilitate water movement. Caterpillar D-8s, with 3 ripper shanks, then rip the subsoil.
Irrigation - Growing of sugarcane on Maui is highly dependent upon irrigation. One of the important projects of the founders of the plantation was the building of the irrigation system which brings East Maui mountain runoff water to the arid central valley of Maui. East Maui Irrigation Company, a subsidiary of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., owns and operates this water collection and delivery system. It consists of over 74 miles of ditches and tunnels and has the capacity to deliver approximately 450 million gallons of mountain water per day to HC&S. The Waihee ditch system in West Maui is jointly owned and operated by HC&S and Wailuku Agribusiness. This system has 12 miles of ditches and tunnels and can deliver 120 million gallons per day to HC&S. In addition, HC&S maintains 42 miles of main supply ditches and 47 reservoirs on the plantation. The reservoir storage capacity is 1.065 billion gallons. In addition to surface runoff water, HC&S has sixteen deep well pumping stations that can deliver an additional 242 million gallons per day of brackish ground water to the lower elevation fields. During an average year, approximately 55% of the water comes from surface runoff sources and the balance from the wells.
Efficient drip irrigation systems supply water to all of the cultivated area of the plantation. The drip systems use thin-wall polyethylene tubing to apply water. Each tube serves two adjacent rows of sugarcane.
Fertilizer is applied through the irrigation system. From 290 to 340 pounds of nitrogen are applied per acre during the first year of the crop. Phosphorous and potassium are applied as determined by soil and plant analysis. In addition, calcium carbonate and calcium silicate may be applied by the broadest method at planting time, depending on soil analysis.
Harvesting - At two years of age, the sugarcane is ready for harvesting. First, the field is burned to reduce the amount leafy matter, tops, dead cane, etc. going to the factory. Large push rakes (Caterpillar D-8s) push the cane into long windrows. Hydraulic cranes with a 4 ton grab capacity load cane into haulers. Each of our 18 haulers is capable of carrying 45-65 tons per load. Harvesting is done on a continuous schedule, operating seven days a week, to maximize factory utilization.

http://www.hcsugar.com/hcs.html

Doesn't exactly sound like preindustrial hand work to me.

This is cool, though:

POWER - HC&S generates its own electric power, primarily from renewable sources, in two steam and three hydroelectric plants. The primary fuel used in the steam plants is bagasse, the fiber residue of the cane plant. HC&S turns about 500,000 tons of bagasse into power annually. The electricity produced meets all the plantation's power requirements. HC&S sells excess electricity to Maui Electric Company, meeting about 10% of the power needs of Maui's homes and businesses.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on January 31, 2006 - 10:04pm

With all due respect, may I suggest that you travel to Jamaica and learn some first-hand, on-the-ground facts?

Capital and energy intensive is not the only way to go with cane. China uses little energy and less capital. Jamaica and Cuba and other poor countries use little capital machinery and very little fossil fuel, because they cannot afford it. Brazil also uses labor intensive techniques.

Of Course in the U.S., where wages are very high, we will use little labor and much energy and much machinery. That is Econ 101 again.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on February 1, 2006 - 12:10am

You can suggest anything you want, but if your statements don't stand up to scrutiny, I'm not going to give your assertions much credit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Agric on January 31, 2006 - 7:15pm

The price of sugar in pre-1750 England was honey! The current price of locally produced english honey is about 10 times the price of sugar (unrefined type, more expensive than refined type and better tasting, lol).

I have intended to purchase sugar beet seed, grow and process it to make sugar, since sugar beet doesn't sting as much as bees and since I deem it a relevant skill to try. However, despite several hours of online search none of the many UK seed companies that sell for domestic use stock any sugar beet seeds. I guess I will have to approach one of the agribusiness suppliers or an industrial farm that grows it to get my seed.

But be not so hasty on biofuels. I agree they are very unlikely to bail us out BUT they could make a difference. If we do end up on the edge(s) we might bless their smallish contribution. I would specifically recommend biodiesel which I am pretty sure has a decent positive EROEI. Besides, we will need to make vegetable oils anyway in PCL (post collapse life) for food and other uses and you can low tech brew up biodiesel from that in no time.

Yes, food was much more expensive before the changes of the last hundred years or more. It will soon be again regardless of whether collapse happens. Learn to grow your own food, save your own seed, it will save money, you will feel better and begin to understand more, and it may well save your life.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on January 31, 2006 - 11:37am

I thought I saw links above ... but here's the one I've seen:

"Raw sugar on the New York Board of Trade is at a 25-year high, while refined, or white, sugar in London is at a 15-year high."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11026140/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

NW Rich on January 30, 2006 - 6:20pm

I know it's been said, but it seems to need repeating: even if the EROEI of corn is positive, it's not very positive. This means that without fossil fuels, or with very expensive fossil fuels what we get out of this is very small. For a small, local niche production ethanol will work, but it just can't be done on a scale that makes a meaningful contribution.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ericy on January 30, 2006 - 10:21pm

I think that states it well - at least for processes that involve fermentation and distillation in order to get ethanol.

There was something interesting the other day:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/successful_star.html

An aqueous phase reformer. Their demonstration model could run on virtually any form of sugar, but they could also use glycerine as a feedstock. In their process, they can turn 10 pounds of glycerol into either 3 pounds of alkane fuel gas or 1 pound of hydrogen gas.

In their demonstration system, they connected the thing to a 10Kw generator.

If successful, this type of thing can change EROEI calculations.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

81 comments on CNN: Bush's SotU to Focus on Energy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”

—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)