<A little humor and an open thread The Oil Drum From an Insider: Rig Prices, Rig Depth, and How to Get a Job>

107 comments on Senate Foreign Relations Cmte: "The Hidden Cost of Oil"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Glenn on March 30, 2006 - 4:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Frankly I don't know what's more depressing, the fact that they aren't talking conservation or the simplistic analysis they are using on what to replace the oil with. The first guy's plan:
A. Increase domestic supplies of oil and natural gas to keep fueling our cars
B. Expand ethanol and biodiesel, plug-in hybrids
C. Reduce non-transportation sector usage of oil - like home heating with wood pellets.
D. Expand production of shale and tar sands.
E. Switch some electric generation from Nat Gas to nuclear

Nothing about questioning the need for all that oil for transportation purposes. He just assumes that is the highest possible end use of fossil fuels.

Nothing about the EROEI of ethanol or biodiesel

Nothing about the scaleability of oil alternatives to heating - the main alternative is Natural gas, which is also in decline in NA.

Nothing about how much natural gas or other energy source to get at the shale or tar - nevermind the environmental impact.

So we are going to do all of this so that we can continue driving 100 miles per day to work...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on March 30, 2006 - 4:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Politics is the art of compromises.

This guy can not talk about any conservation because it is electorate unacceptable and a one-way ticket out of politics. Or for other alternatives that require huge capital investments (e.g. restructuring Suburbia, expanding and electrifying the rail network etc.).

In this context the propositions he made are the best that is realistically possible to implement at this very moment and I'm very glad that someone made them. When things get tighter the public will be ready for the next portion want it or not.

Regarding biodiesel/ethanol - I'm certain their EROEI is well above 1 (maybe > 2-3) because otherwise it would have been a totally losing business in spite of the subsidies. The low EROEI precludes its limited scalability and applicability (when I checked it the Brazilian oil usage in last years is essentially flat), but IMO every little bit helps and will help.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on March 31, 2006 - 1:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Corn based ethanol required subsidies when oil was $10/b. Why does it need subsidies at $60+? It might even be that the subsidies are going up/b produced...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on March 31, 2006 - 1:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well oil has risen with some 500%, but gasoline/diesel for which ethanol can be used for replacement has risen with just 150% (the difference mostly because of the fuel tax and the profit margin of refineries/retailers remaining a constant value).

And if you have ERORI of 2, than your bill for gas, fuel and electricity has also risen significantly. Especially NG has risen many times more than the rise in gasoline. Of course, this is the curse of the low EROEI.

I don't have the necessarry data to make the calculations, but I can just WAG that if gasoline goes to $4-5, ethanol will not need subsidies. A much more energy wise (but politically impossible) measure would be instead of subsidising ethanol to tax gasoline to that level and remove the subsidies completely. If it remains feasible - than we have a energy and an economic winner.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on March 31, 2006 - 4:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This guy can not talk about any conservation because it is electorate unacceptable and a one-way ticket out of politics. Or for other alternatives that require huge capital investments (e.g. restructuring Suburbia, expanding and electrifying the rail network etc.).

and it has even LESS of a chance to get done if no-one even talks about it in meetings such as this.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BMWintheshop on March 31, 2006 - 8:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The ship of state does not turn on a dime, no matter how loudly one screams in Congress.  The U.S. will go through craw, walk, run phases until it reaches its goal of energy independence.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

107 comments on Senate Foreign Relations Cmte: "The Hidden Cost of Oil"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version