<DrumBeat: August 3, 2007The Oil DrumWhy We "Waste" Energy: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Explains--UPDATED 8/7>

44 comments on Legislative Updates on The Energy Bills: Today is the Day, Make Your Voice Heard

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

David L Hagen on August 2, 2007 - 11:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Recommendations and Comments to:
“Summary and Text of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for H.R. 3221 - New Direction for Energy Independence , National Security, and Consumer Protection Act”
http://www.rules.house.gov/amendment_details.aspx?NewsID=2840

Boustany (LA) #9
“The amendment to title II adds the Secretary of Energy as a statutory member of the National Security Council (NSC) and establishes a Directorate of Energy within the NSC to formulate and coordinate national energy security policy. The amendment also requires the President to conduct a quadrennial energy security review.”
YES: Strategically important. Peak Oil will need critical high level response.

Engel (NY) #72
“The amendment to title IX would direct the federal government to develop and implement a plan to reduce U.S. oil dependence, starting with oil savings of 2.5 million barrels of oil per day within ten years, and increasing significantly by 2025. Also requires each agency to conduct a fuel-usage audit.”
YES: Can’t fix what you don’t measure.

“Engel (NY) #73
The amendment to title IX would require new vehicles to be capable of operating on alcohol fuel, such as ethanol and methanol, and a range of other vehicle technologies.”
YES: Strategically important to provide the flexibility to use whatever fuel is available.

Gingrey (GA) #5
“The amendment to title IV prohibits funds from being appropriated to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) until the study passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has been completed and recommends the establishment of the ARPA-E.”
NO: Negates APPA-E. ARPA-E (like DARPA) appears strategically important to channel serious funds into energy research and demonstration. DOE is primarily a nuclear agency.
“The establishment of an Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy was recommended in the National Academy of Sciences report on American competitiveness,”
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/109.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/08/energy_research_for_all.php
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy26480.000/hsy26480_0.HTM
http://www.eetonline.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1992021...

Optimum energy R&D is 1000% of current energy R&D (10x higher). See:
“U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion” Gregory F. Nemeta, & Daniel M. Kammena, Energy Policy V35(1) Jan 2007 pp 746-755.

Shimkus (IL) #23
“The amendment to title X mandates certain volumes of Alternative Fuels each year, including; renewable fuels, qualifying coal-derived liquid fuels, and fuels derived from biological materials, including natural gas, biogas, and others. In the year 2013, the motor vehicle and nonroad fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States would be required to contain 14 billion gallons of Alternative Fuel. By 2025, the applicable volume would rise to 35 billion gallons.”
YES: Prefer market driven, but better some than none to prepare for Peak Oil.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on August 4, 2007 - 12:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hello David,

Thanks for your comment.

re: "Boustany (LA) #9
“The amendment to title II adds the Secretary of Energy as a statutory member of the National Security Council (NSC) and establishes a Directorate of Energy within the NSC to formulate and coordinate national energy security policy. The amendment also requires the President to conduct a quadrennial energy security review.”
YES: Strategically important. Peak Oil will need critical high level response."

Do you see a problem with transparency?

If so, then the question becomes how to incorporate and insure accountability and access to information?

re: "to formulate"

By what process? With what kind of oversight? With what kind of transparency? What accountability? And what is the process embodied in law that would ensure these become features of the "directorate"?

So, we would have one person or small group in charge of formulating energy security policy? For the entire country? And in relation to international sources as well (give that we import energy.)

(ie., What was the result of the "Energy Task Force"?)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on August 4, 2007 - 1:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

re: "“Engel (NY) #73
The amendment to title IX would require new vehicles to be capable of operating on alcohol fuel, such as ethanol and methanol, and a range of other vehicle technologies.”

My questions about this are:

1) At what cost?

2) How is the cost absorbed?

3) Does this bias new vehicles to use "alcohol fuel", thus creating a demand for this fuel, which could become, in a real sense, an artifact of the legislation itself?

4) Are alcohol fuels a realistic solution for a large percentage of vehicles - (i.e., other than special use vehicles?)

So, my initial response would be "No". I'd be interested in others' opinion.

re: "Shimkus (IL) #23
“The amendment to title X mandates certain volumes of Alternative Fuels each year, including; renewable fuels, qualifying coal-derived liquid fuels, and fuels derived from biological materials, including natural gas, biogas, and others. In the year 2013, the motor vehicle and nonroad fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States would be required to contain 14 billion gallons of Alternative Fuel. By 2025, the applicable volume would rise to 35 billion gallons.”
YES: Prefer market driven, but better some than none to prepare for Peak Oil." (endquote)

Likewise, as the price of oil rises and/or shortages develop, the cost of so called "renewable fuels" will also rise.

As far as I can tell, the analysis shows only a small percentage of current gasoline use can be replaced by "alternative fuels".

Coal-derived liquid fuels - a good idea? It doesn't seem to be.

Do these measures only worsen the impact, if what we really need to do is to develop electricity-based transport?

I could see something along these lines with the qualification that such conversions be for special-use vehicles only: firetrucks, etc.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on August 4, 2007 - 1:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Does this bias new vehicles to use "alcohol fuel", thus creating a demand for this fuel, which could become, in a real sense, an artifact of the legislation itself?

This is exactly the sort of thing I am concerned about. The government, after hearing from proponents who suggest that we can run the country on alcohols:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/myths.html

(See point 3).

They then think they can pick technology winners, so they mandate them. Meanwhile, some bright scientist in a lab invents a way to make a high energy density fuel from biomass, yet it isn't an alcohol and has to compete against subsidized and mandated fuels. It is not the way to conduct an energy policy.

I fear, as energy prices continue to escalate, that we are going to be doomed to watching our politicians reinvent our energy policy every year or two (as they are doing now) in an attempt to fix a problem that they are only making worse by enacting the wrong policies.

Prediction: Two years from now, they are explaining to their constituents how they are going to pass a new energy bill to do something about those "damned oil companies and their $5/gallon gasoline." Meanwhile, the reason for $5/gal gasoline fails to sink in.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.