Remember when Bush ran in 2000, and said he was more of an environmentalist than Al Gore, because he would 'regulate the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere'?

Of course when he got to power, that became reducing the amount of CO2 per unit of GDP (that falls by about 1.5% pa in any case).

My continual sense with Bush is that whilst he changes his rhetoric to suit what the focus groups tell him, his political agenda remains unchanged.

The Baker Commission calls for a pull back in Iraq, and dealings with Iran and Syria. Bush toughens his rhetoric, and pours more troops in.

In his Energy Bill he called for more R&D to solve the energy problem, and then subsequent budgets have actually cut R&D below what was planned. For example the DOE's efficient vehicle programme has been cut back.

Where there are programmes which are ostensibly towards dealing with emissions, they are structured in a way so as to have payoff so far in the future that they are not likely to be valuable. That's why the 'FutureGen' project is known in the industry as 'NeverGen'.

Similarly the focus on hydrogen, a transport fuel which no reasonable analyst expects to have any significance before 2025 or later.

Call it pro fossil fuel, call it anti international institutions, call it pro highly paid taxpayers. Call it what you will, each policy measure has always looped back towards supporting the interests that have funded his political career (oil, pharmaceuticals etc.).

In that sense he is ideologically utterly consistent: perhaps a virtue, but not one that will lead to real policy change. He is, as he says, a man who knows his own mind, a decider.

So I expect rhetorical hot air, but not real change.

The group’s principles include recommending a range of emissions levels — from 100 to 105 percent of current levels within five years, then down to 90 to 100 percent of current levels in 10 years, and 70 to 90 percent of current levels in 15 years. In addition, the chief executives agreed after some discussion, to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide.

This would basically eliminate the idea of new coal plants without significant carbon sequestration technology in place

Or rather, require all new coal plants to have the provision to put carbon capture technology in place when that is available .

Since we don't know which coal capture technology will prove dominant (1), this could boil down to leaving an empty space next to the plant, designated for future carbon capture.

(1) leading candidates include:

IGCC - coal gasification
amine scrub of the exhaust flu
oxy-hydrogen combustion

My own guess is IGCC is the technological best lead. By concentrating the CO2 (a nearly pure stream from the gasification stage) you are making the capture so easy for yourself.

However the utility industry deeply distrusts IGCC due to reliability issues (new technology). This is a very conservative industry, with a low rate of R&D (1% of sales, v. 8% in the pharmaceutical industry).

Other than supercritical steam, there hasn't been a major innovation in coal fired technology since the 1960s that I know of (except aforesaid IGCC ie gasification, which is more of a chemical industry technology than a power utility one).

Let's take a look at what Philip Verleger said just this Friday, in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal about biofuel use in the next 2-3 years.

"Last year was a tipping point in a lot of ways," says Philip Verleger Jr., an oil economist who heads PK Verleger LLC. "Biofuels will take bigger and bigger bites out of petroleum demand," Mr. Verleger said, noting climate-change and security concerns relating to the supply and use of petroleum. "Alternate fuels will take up all the growth, leaving petroleum demand static in the next two or three years."

I found the claim so surprising, even using say a very low 1.00% YOY demand growth in petroleum demand(which is lower than IEA) that I wrote to Verleger today to query whether he was properly quoted. Actually, I assumed he was properly quoted, but I wondered if the context had been correct.

He wrote back and said yes, he was properly quoted.

gregor

Opening statement tonight by POTUS in his SOTUS:

"The state of our Union Denial is strong."

what about water vapor and naturally occuring dust?
in terms of total particulate matter in the atmsophere - these natural sources make up over 80% of all emissions

Press reports say that the State of the Union speech is going to ask for 40 billion gallons of Biofuels (not only ethanol but also butanol, methanol, biodiesel ...). It may be doable over the next decade or two but clearly there are strong opinions on either side. However, the target will also be vulnerable to

(1) Oil companies refusal to share there distribution infrastructure (e.g. Chevron)

(2) predatory pricing by fossil fuel pumpers e.g. KSA, if substitution/conservation causes fossil derived prices to fall.

The Democrats should seize this opportunity to seal into code legislation to counter (1) and (2) above.

USA Strategic Petroleum Reserve Doubling - State of the Union Speech

The following article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR200701...
states that "President George W. Bush plans to call for a doubling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's capacity in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, the White House said."

and also that "U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman announced the government will buy 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil over a few months starting in the spring to add 11 million barrels to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve".

The link below
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html
states that for the USA Strategic Petroleum Reserve the "Current storage capacity - 727 million barrels
Current days of import protection in SPR - 59 days
(Maximum days of import protection in SPR - 118 days in 1985)"

George Bush wants to increase the current days of protection to about what they were in 1985. This requires buying another 727 million barrels.

Sam Bodman announced that the government will buy 100,000 barrels per day. At this buying rate it will take 7,270 days (20 years!) to buy 727 million barrels.

If the USA buys 1 million barrels per day then it would take two years to double SPR.

If the USA buys 0.5 million barrels per day then it would take four years.

The increase in annual global demand due to 0.5 million barrels per day to double USA SPR is another 0.6% (0.5/85). OPEC recently stated that they forecast global demand growth at about 1.5%. Wonder if part of their forecast includes an allowance for USA and other countries to increase their SPRs? Is this the real reason why Saudi Arabia is not "voluntarily" cutting production anymore?

The doubling of the USA SPR could increase annual demand significantly to over 2%! It could also act as a catalyst for high growth consumers China and India to act competitively and increase their demand to also have 120 days import protection from their SPRs.

from aspo(72):
"Conventional manufacturing has now been in decline for several years, and agricultural production is also contracting, partly due to the depletion of the aquifers."

While not directly related to energy depletion, I feel that the fraction of the us 'energy balance' that is now imported is increasing, as the fraction of US gdp that is service based is increasing.
The depletion of the aquifers is also an environmental issue, but somehow i think that neither of these topics would end up being discussed as there is no way to fix them and win votes.

Does anyone know if the plan to increase alternative fuel vehicles from 3% to 15% by 2017 is sufficient to decrease oil consumption by the planned 2 mbpd?

It looks like the US is actually beginning to slightly care about its oil usage : more production (does anyone know if the 1Mbpd from the alaska area is feasible, and in what time frame?), more alternative fuels, less consumption, larger reserve.
The other side of this is its nothing that hasn't been promised before, and i don't know if it will happen this time.

Andrew
--
ps. oil rose $3 today, and the rise over the last week is $4.5 and looks like it could stay that way - i guess the week of cheap oil is over, even though fuel prices in Australia dropped below $1(au)/L for a few days.

C'mon...who will take up the bet?

Will Prince George say it????

Will the words "Peak Oil" pass those lips?

Or can we just count how many euphemisms he will use in place of PO?

It could be a drinking game..."Islamo-fascism"...take a shot..."break our addiction to oil"...pass the Tequila...."focus on alternatives"...hic, where's the hooch?

Honestly, I think he'll say it not just once, but several times.

The Bush energy proposals are now online at the White House website. They look similar to what was posted at TOD as a PDF.

Bush: Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal? [link]

I don't expect D.C. to do anything but make things worse.

Here's a link to the White House Briefing on the Energy section of the SOTU:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html

In the 20% reduction in 10 years bit, they say "In 2017, this will displace 20 percent of PROJECTED annual gasoline use."

Does anyone here know what those projections are? And what assumptions are made in them?

Bush's plan is maximally sleazy and wrong on the most important issue which could make a short-term difference: fuel efficiency standards.

Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule.

Note, extending the "current Light Truck Rule". THAT IS EXACTLY THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.

Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.

In other words, make cars, and uniquely cars more expensive (though fuel efficient), less safe and less powerful and desirable versus trucks.

THAT WILL WORSTEN THE PROBLEM.

The problem is that too many people drive trucks when they should drive cars. Changing that will do more than supporting more hybrid drive trains on already efficient cars.

The correct solution is first to eliminate the egregious exception that gives trucks such a preference.

If it uses more fuel, yes even knowing it's a truck, it will be less preferred.

Will Bush at least allude to a connection between energy/oil and our need to stay in Iraq/Middle East?

Funny how the Republicans get the environmental results while the Democrats get the reputation.

-Teddy Roosevelt inaugurated the world's first National Park when he set aside Yellowstone. Throughout his two terms he set aside millions of acres of natural areas.

-Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and signed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

-George W Bush bestowed monument status on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which span 1,200 nautical miles. To put this area in context, this national monument is more than 100 times larger than Yosemite National Park. It's larger than 46 of 50 states, and more than seven times larger than all our national marine sanctuaries combined. It is the largest wildlife refuge in the world. Bush also signed the Renewable Fuels Standard establishing ethanol and biodiesel as viable commodities that will reduce pollution.

The mainstream media likes to spin the narrative that the Democrats are the environmentally aware party but they never do anything to deserve that reputation. What is more common is seeing people like Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy opposing offshore wind farms that block his elite view of the water. Pathetic.

Reducing petroleum use by 10% by 2017?
Credible long range forecasts on TOD have world production down at least 20% by then.

since the world wide production of carbon dioxide is about 6,500 million metric tons a year which is 6,500,000,000,000kg per year according to the graph above and carbon dioxide has a density of 1.98kg per cubic meter that's about 3,282,828,282,828 cubic meters of carbon dioxide a year which if you take the cube root of that you get a 14,862 meter long tall and deep cube of carbon dioxide which equates to 3284 cubic kilometers or 788 cubic mile of carbon dioxide a year that is just a huge amount

My Reaction to the State of the Union

I think it’s great to set ambitious goals. It’s true that if you set stretch goals, but fall a bit short, you still probably did OK. But it is also important to set goals that have a reasonable chance of success, especially when the consequences of falling short are high.

In President Bush’s State of the Union address tonight, he called for a 20% reduction in our gasoline consumption in the next 10 years. That’s a noble goal, and one that I fully support. For this goal, President Bush deservedly received a standing ovation. In fact, a 20% reduction would still have the U.S. using significantly more energy than the average European (we currently use about double the energy of the average European). So, one might think that we might look to Europe - given their current energy usage - as a model for helping us to lower our consumption here in the U.S.

But, as you might have noticed we like to do things our own way in the U.S. Sure, the Europeans (as well as most other countries) have had success, but we live in the land of the non-negotiable lifestyle. Therefore, we can't emulate the Europeans. We have to find a way to keep running those gas-guzzlers so we can shun public transportation and drive anywhere, anytime we wish.

Bush's proposal would be to increase our level of biofuels production by 35 million gallons in the next 10 years. Not surprisingly, this was well-received by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley. I think "giddy" would accurately describe his demeanor as the camera panned on him. The president then got back on track and recommended improved the economy standards on cars to save another 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline in the next 10 years. He in fact said a lot of things that, if followed through, would greatly benefit the U.S. He discussed solar power and plug in hybrids, two of my passions. But I fear that we are too heavily counting on biofuels to deliver.

Look, I have no problem with the goal of increasing biofuels production. I think it's a good goal, but as we know it can have unwanted consequences. Clearly we do not produce enough corn and soybeans to achieve this goal, so the technology that is being counted on is almost certainly cellulosic ethanol. And while cellulosic ethanol has great potential, we need to realistically understand that there is a reason that cellulosic ethanol plants are not up and running today.

Certain Silicon Valley entrepreneurs would have you believe that we just have to fund enough start ups and the technology breakthroughs will come. But it isn't always as simple as calling your shot and then delivering it. Some people point to Moore's Law and think it's that simple. It is not that simple. Moore's Law has only recently started bumping up against basic chemistry and physics. Production of cellulosic ethanol has been bumping up against these limits for years. I have previously weighed in on the current status of cellulosic ethanol technology, as well as the amount of biomass required for implementation. Clearly the technology is not yet ready for prime time.

And that brings me to my major concern: Is there a contingency plan? Cellulosic ethanol will see technology improvements. No doubt. What if they aren't enough? What if, as is the case with a number of medical issues like cancer, we are still struggling with this issue in 10 years? Based on where we are right now, I think there is a pretty decent probability of that. Others, like Vinod Khosla, think the can do attitude of Silicon Valley will ensure success. But just in case, what is the backup plan? Are we going to operate without one? If world oil production peaks in the next few years, as I think is likely, where will we be if cellulosic ethanol doesn't deliver? Will we merely count on sky-high prices to destroy demand (while also destroying lives)? Will we send troops to Venezuela to keep the oil flowing?

When we are serious about attacking our energy dependence, we will go after the demand side. I believe that a revenue neutral gas tax would seriously cut into our demand over time. This is, of course, the main reason for Europe’s success in maintaining a much lower level of energy usage. Such an approach works, and Europeans enjoy a nice standard of living. Perhaps we will decide to take this proven approach for reducing consumption before declining oil production forces higher prices on us before we have time to prepare.

Well, Dubya stuck to the script.

The Democratic response basically brushed right over the energy stuff, and emphasized jobs and Iraq. Probably smart, politically; voters don't care about anything except Iraq right now.

Even CNN's wingnut commentators barely mentioned energy. Bill Schneider said something about the global warming thing, saying that it was new, but wasn't likely to sway anyone.

More than ever, I'm convinced that if there's anything to be done, it's going to be on the local level.

OK, watched some of the SOTU speech and have one question.

Why was Cheney smirking during the energy part of Bush's speech?

All other times, he was pretty stone-faced. Man...that guy does not even blink. I was watching him for reactions from Bush's words...well..probably Cheney's words only spoken by Bush.

Here is a thought. Given that the rising demand for corn to make ethanol, it is pretty much accepted that certain food costs will rise. Putting aside the mass starvation hysteria for a moment and focusing on the impact within the United States, we will likely see high fructose corn syrup dramtically increasing in price (among other things). This is not necessarily a bad thing given that HFCS is at the heart of a lot of the crap food that this country consumes. The closely related curse of cheap oil is cheap food, but not necessarily good food. Given the obesity epidemic consuming this country, the rise of Type II Diabetes, cutting off our supply of Ding-Dongs and Ho-Hos might not be a bad thing.

Note that I do not advocate Corn-based Ethanonl by any stretch, I am only musing on the possible unintended consequences. When you perturb a complex system such as the national energy intrastructure you often get very unexpected outcomes. Some good and some bad....

Nice Graph. Can someone supply a source or attribution for it?