 | Why oil costs over $120 per barrel | The Oil Drum | Oil and the future - the commuter shift to public transport |  |
So - do we have answers?
Posted by Heading Out on May 30, 2008 - 9:00am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: corn yields, crude oil, ethanol, production research [list all tags]
“Alright!” says the Actress, “You’ve convinced me we have a problem with oil. So what’s the answer?” Well, actually I didn’t. Eloquent and persuasive though I might like to think that I am, what really convinced her was the price she had to pay to fill the gas tank in her car. And it is that way with most of the world. We can talk about the causes, and explain why the situation won’t get better, with graphs and projections and calculations, and most folk will, under the cynical guidance of most of the press, merely look for someone to blame. Oh, and there had better be an answer, pretty quick.
In my last post I tried to show that new solutions take time, more time than I believe that we have available. And because of this, if we are going to get through this evolving period we are largely going to be stuck with the solutions that are already either being introduced or are close to large-scale implementation. Though that is one of the things I tried to allude to in the earlier post about Camry mileage. The scale of the difference between likely supply and demand at a decent price is going to get quite large. If a solution does not provide supply levels that measure in millions of barrels a day (or significant fractions thereof) then it is not going to have enough impact to make much difference in the medium term.
That doesn’t mean that we should stop work on fusion, after all, even to the next generation to be born, it is likely to be “a potential solution with the greatest promise.” But rather that we have to put more of an emphasis on finding ways to do more with what we have, in the way of solutions and resources. And that includes finding better and more efficient ways of getting oil out of the ground. It is where part of the immediate problem is most evident, and though it will not provide a long term solution, it can perhaps ease the pain over the next decade.
But even here there is likely not enough research being done on innovative ideas. I have, in a much earlier post quoted Michael Economides and Ronald Oligney from The Color of Oil in which they point out that the petroleum industry has been sadly lacking in funding research.
Many unique features distinguish the technology of the petroleum industry. First, there is little doubt that technology is crucial, and that deployment and integration of technology is essential to the industry's success. Yet, this technology is highly diversified and applied to industry segments with different needs. The scope is wide. Seismic exploration and processing, enhanced oil recovery and the construction of deepwater production facilities have little in common.Why is it, then that the petroleum industry, so technically dependent, is the industry with the smallest R & D spending? The healthcare sector leads all industries, with 11% of sales going into R&D; the electrical and electronics industry spends 5.5%, and the chemical industry spends 4.1%. In this light, the petroleum industry's R & D spending of less than 0.5% of sales is striking.
It is not just the petroleum industry, the mining industry is equally lacking in funding research into innovative, and more effective ways of producing the minerals, including coal, that we need. If there is one thing that Congress could perhaps ask, it is why there is this lack of investment. So far it seems that there has been little investment other than in public relations.
Now, to be fair to them, I did partially answer that question in a comment I appended to that original post.
Grin - a history lesson (because I was there) - Scene Park City, Utah.
On the front row, representatives of all the big oil companies. We are meeting to talk about drilling research. Says the rep of a European oil company – “Why are the Feds doing research into drilling technology - don't they know that we are working on this?”
Says the rep of an oil company located in Houston – “What is your drilling R & D budget?”
European "$x million."
Houston guy " This new Administration that they are forming has a budget in the billions."
European "Oh, I guess if they are going to fund it there is no reason for us to."
And so they largely stopped, but ERDA went on to fund other things instead of drilling research and, in time, became the Department of Energy.
Sic transit . . .
And then, in time, the Department of Energy reduced their programs, more and more, and less and less got done . . . .
And, as for the research in mining, well that was carried out by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Among other things they pioneered coal bed methane (CBM) technology – this from 1978
The Bureau of Mines is conducting research to determine the effectiveness of long holes in degasifying an area of the Upper Split of the Lower Sunnyside coalbed at Kaiser Steel Co.'s Sunnyside No. 1 mine. These holes were drilled from the two outside entries of a section that was closed to mining because of excessive methane emissions. Two holes drilled to 430 and 450 feet produced initial gas flows of 160,000 and 127,000 cfd, respectively . Sixteen days after the completion of the second hole, the total gas production declined to just over 144,000 cfd.In 9 months of degasification, over 35 MMcf of commercial-quality gas has been removed from the coalbed. The combined gas flows declined to 106,000 cfd in the 9-month period. The two holes have reduced face emissions by about 40%.
They also did some of the early work on horizontal wells, developed from a vertical bore, but those reports (such as USBM RI 8640) don’t appear available electronically. What happened to them? In March 1996 the Bureau of Mines was closed. It seems as though there is more than one dropped ball rolling around the floor.
As I mentioned in my last post I am an avid reader of science fiction and fantasy, as well as books on energy and related matters – sometimes it is hard to tell which is which (grin). But I remember a story (though not title or author) in which the protagonist noted, about a new breakthrough, that of the scientists that investigated it, at least half would be trying to prove that it didn’t work.
I bring that up because, as ideas develop towards being solutions to the fuel supply needs that we face, they invariably encounter problems. Ethanol from corn is likely one such, there are high energy input requirements and water demands that are raising voices of concern. But among the 2007 highest yields (pdf) was Sam Santini, who raised 313 bu/acre without irrigation. Some of the problems that are given as road-stoppers to application may only be hurdles that have to be crossed, and in such cases an overly negative climate really doesn’t help.
At the moment it still seems to me that each of us has his/her favorite solution, and in seeking to push its charms, feels it is still necessary to denigrate the chances of the others. (And yes, in that regard I will admit to a personal preference for algae). The reality is that we are going to need all the help that we can get, and no solution is going to be universal – there is no silver bullet. It is hard to see solar being very useful, for example, in Alaska in December. But, as I think Matt Simmons said, there are lots of silver bb’s out there. We need to be encouraging them all, because we will need them all. The scale of the problem that is developing, and the speed with which it will arrive, is largely not comprehended. And, unfortunately, at present, I don’t see that we have enough grasp on the questions that must be asked, if we are to find those answers, let alone knowing what those answers are.
But among the 2007 highest yields (pdf) was Sam Santini, who raised 313 bu/acre without irrigation. Some of the problems that are given as road-stoppers to application may only be hurdles that have to be crossed, and in such cases an overly negative climate really doesn’t help.
But neither does the tendency to extrapolate those kinds of results to project that this is a solution. I am not suggesting that you are doing it, but it is very common for people to take a number like that, and just start making assumptions that this can be achieved under normal circumstances. Maybe, maybe not. But when the maybes start affecting policy decisions, that needs to be dealt with by applying a bit of scientific skepticism. This sort of extrapolation is exactly the kind of thinking that leads some to ask - rather naively - "If Brazil can do it, why can't we?"
Of course not all farms are going to reach that level immediately, but on the other hand average corn yield in the past 20 years has almost doubled (86.6 to 151.1) so with high numbers now being reached it is not a total fantasy to anticipate that this progress may be maintained. Further the record total yield was in a reduced till category -so the basic assumptions on the amount of energy necessary to generate the crop may not be valid either (on the other hand they probably spent more time in the field monitoring and tweaking to get the record - so we probably shouldn't stress that point too much).
I spend a fair bit of my time on applying new technologies to fields and improving performance, which requires understanding why very good results are generated and then working out how to apply them more generally. It also causes me to meet a lot of folk who would rather spend their time telling me why my ideas won't work. When there is evidence to the contrary, this can be very frustrating.
First, let me say that I Don't believe "Corn" ethanol is the "be-all, end-all." I think it's, basically, a transitional technology that has gotten us moving on the right track.
That said: Remember, that vast area of Brazil, the Cerrano, that's as large as Alaska (but with a much better climate:) was considered "Not Suitable" for agriculture just a few years, ago. Then the Monsantos, and Duponts of the world went to work. Now, it's projected to be the "Breadbasket of the World." Don't bet against the gene-splicers.
In THIS POST I showed that the "Optimum Blend" for a Toyota Camry might very well be E30 (Thirty percent ethanol.) Other vehicles seem to do better on other blends. EX. the Chevrolet Impala likes E20 quite a lot (15% better mileage than Straight Gasoline.)
The trend is definitely "better" mileage than before with ethanol blends. It's Not "THE" answer; but, it doesn't seem like it should be overlooked, either. Jes Sayin :)
Here's are two problems with our (ever-growing) reliance on bleeding-edge technology to solve all our problems:
1) It ignores the root cause of the food/oil "shortage" (overpopulation), and..
2) It ignores the long-term environmental impact of new technology and how it frequently creates brand-new problems (unintended consequences).
Why must we always assume the world human population *has* to keep expanding, consuming ever more of the world's biomass and resources, and destroying more ecosystems and species?
Why must world leaders keep ignoring the overpopulation issue and deferring to corporate globalists and religious leaders/fanatics, who desire infinite population & economic growth?
Why is genetic engineering typically portrayed in the media as this wondrous, miracle, manna-from-heaven "solution" to all our problems, when in reality, it often creates as many problems as it "solves"? Google "Monsanto" and "Terminator seeds" for more info. Nothing like playing God on a global scale with the world's gene pool --and regulators nowhere in sight.
With all due respect I disagree with both points. The increasing population is a fact of life, and while it bothers me considerably, since I recognize the problems that it creates, not being willing to deal with them is to become an advocate for the Four Horsemen.
In regard to the suggested luddite approach to new technology, I have also had to deal with this from time to time as I have helped technology move into the marketplace. If you are not willing to accept that technical advances have brought benefits to society over the past hundred years then the conversation becomes pointless.
The increasing population is a fact of life? Well, then, I guess dieoff is too. Can't really have it both ways, be ye yeast or beast.
Advocating longterm goals instead of short-term anthropocentric selfishness is hardly an endorsement of the apocalypse. I wish an apocalypse (overshoot/dieoff) had been avoided. My wishes were not consulted.
Your strawman characterization of this as a "luddite approach" is not particularly relevant, and seems verging on ad hominem, though I won't presume to speak for the poster you replied to. But since I share the poster's opinions, I'll note that I spent a fair amount of time and effort last year trying to get independent funding for Dr. Bussard's fusion research in communication with him and am a pretty high-tech person. That notwithstanding, the main problem is Too Many Humans At Once. If you don't accept the reality that this unhealthy overshoot is intimately connected with the headlong extraction of energy and mined materials, IMO that constitutes a blind spot in your arguments, and a willful disregard of long-term consequences.
Thanks for your work at TOD, it's a great site.
An extremely well expressed comment.
I have a strong scientific and engineering background, and I have no desire to roll back all of the advances of the industrial revolution. Nevetheless I have been accused of being a Luddite, a communist, a hippe moron, and tree-hugger who desires to kill off two thirds of the human race simply because I have espoused the idea that economic simplification is the proper response to resource depletion. I continue to be amazed by the ferocity of the resistance to this extremely simple idea.
Anarchist!
(sorry, you forgot one. :) )
Derrick Jensen makes the point people will defend to the death the systems that bring them food and water. If your food comes from the forest and your water comes from the river, you'll do whatever it takes to protect it. However, if your food comes from the supermarket and your water comes in a plastic bottle...
Your idea is correct. I have a degree in physics and worked for a Nobel Prize winning experiment.
High price of technology has nothing to do with social good. Rather, it is a liability.
hero
Again I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I said that we have to recognize that the population is increasing. With that as an underlying existing reality if you are not prepared to address the problems that this brings, then yes you are merely advocating the apocalypse.
Certainly population growth is a problem, but it is not one that can be resolved, I suspect, in the next two decades. Thus we have to find ways of resolving issues of food, fuel and shelter as the populace grows.
The comment about being a luddite, came from the statement that "It ignores the long-term environmental impact of new technology and how it frequently creates brand-new problems (unintended consequences)." I find that a bit presumptuous and insulting to the large number of scientists who are trying to find answers to these problems. Environmental impact is one of the factors that are discussed as technology moves forward, and while it is not always possible to cover all the problems that a new technology might bring, it is not a sustainable argument for stopping technical advances.
First off, special thanks to greenish & Roger K for offering an eloquent defense and added context for the ideas I was trying to convey.
RE; the "Luddite" charge, anyone who has followed my posts here or elsewhere knows I am no science-hating Luddite. Nor did I say I wanted "all technological advances stopped". That is a complete fabrication and strawman argument. Far from it, I am a champion of science, and am what the devoutly religious would probably describe as a "secular humanist". I believe (contrary to some regulars here) that nuclear power --along with renewables (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc.) can, and probably will, be ramped up to offset most of the decline in FFs... eventually. However, there will be very real costs and unintended consequences of that scale of ramp-up. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Heading Out, you seem to be conflating "technological progress" with "population increases", as though one cannot advance without the other. You also seem to subscribe to the common misperception that technology is the ONLY solution to the problems being caused by overpopulation: soaring food/NRG costs, environmental destruction, and resource depletion. I fundamentally disagree with this view.
I believe we can actually have *more*, not less, technological progress with fewer people than more. In fact, the pace of technological progress can actually *increase* when we are not desperately devoting most of our resources and R&D in a vain attempt to keep up with ever-increasing population growth. Take a look at the most technologically adavnced nations on earth right now. How many of them have a sharply rising population growth rate? No/flat population growth? Falling population growth? Now look at the population growth rates for the *least* advanced nations? See a pattern here?
I am strongly in favor of a higher QUALITY of life, not QUANTITY.
Ironically, better Quality of Life seems to lead automatically to a controlled "Quantity".
Birth-rates in some developed nations are already below replacement.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
In India, the higher-tech areas of the country (delivering a middle-class lifestyle to millions of young global call centre operators and software engineers...) are also the ones with the lowest birthrates. In fact, there has been a spectacular improvement in Indian birth-rates within one generation.
- A telling map is on http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/birthrate.htm
My solution: a relatively small "social security" payment by the rich nations of the world into the pockets of the global poor should help to stop population growth in its tracks. It makes a lot more sense to me than much higher defence budgets in the future if we just let things go...
This is an economic solution to overpopulation which only requires clear thinking and political will to start it up.
Right on for quality,not quantity!
Unfortunately,very few people in leadership positions are prepared to even discuss population and immigration issues.This subject appears to have taboo status.
May be something to do with political correctness and not wishing to appear to be racist?
Heading Out, I agree with you here. At this late stage in the game, population growth will not be curtailed in many parts of the world. At least not via the cultural carrot.
A real conundrum. Take efforts to ramp up nuclear, for example. Because of long-term security issues (e.g., terrorism) in a post-peak world, I've long been ambivalent towards nuclear: should a Mad-Max scenario come to pass, the planet could be damaged for a long, long time.
However, in the absence of nuclear, the shortfall in power/electricity would only be that much worse. This shortfall probably increases the odds of major nuclear war considerably. And a large-scale nuclear war would also wreak havoc on the biota and biosphere for a very long time.
I'm curious, what do others think about these tradeoffs?
Matthew, I have a very clear opinion about nuclear and security. Non-sequitur - period!
The notion of national security is a fairy tale. The threats have always been more internal than external. What good is the idea of national security when your cities are burning?
Safekeeping fissionable material has as much value as padlocks on doors. If someone really wants to get it, they will. This is the argument of the complete non-nuke proponents. Unfortunately, it is true. I am not in one camp or the other, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge their truth.
If 'Murika wants to move ahead, it has to put the boogie men to rest and deal with the uncommon common sense.
BC_EE,
What in the world are you talking about? There was absolutely no mention of national security in my post. I said long-term security: In the medium- to longer-term, millions of people (particularly Americans, who have so far to fall) are going to experience a plummeting standard of living. Prime breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties, such as religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological extremism. These people will pose the greatest threat to infrastructure in their immediate environments.
Next time, try to read the post before responding to what seems to be a very emotional topic for you ;)
First, the mad max future apocalypse fantasies are nothing more than the wet dreams of neoprimative misanthropes. Theres not the slightest possibility of such a future actually happening.
Second the fear is unfounded and wrong. Spewing radioactive waste all over the countryside as rapidly as possible does nothing to the environment, only to real estate values. See the Chernobyl exclusion zone. If you intentionally devoted significant resources to spewing radwaste everywhere, wildlife wouldn't care. Things like hydroelectric dams and coal mines have much bigger impact.
HO, you've been taking a bit of a beating for stating your point of view (notice how I avoided the use of the word opinion). And, we are all entitled; furthermore, that is part of the scientific process to defend one's position against criticism. A last man standing survival of the fittest Darwinian approach to scientific consensus as it were.
However, I see one glaring omission in the general scientific presumption, and that is thermodynamics. I postulate the aggregate of the peak phenomena is in fact "peak entropy". Peak Entropy is a function of human activity combined with technology. We may have hit our limit for the time being.
That being said, I do agree with your pragmatic approach to using what we know now to solve our immediate issues. We hear a few analogies about the end of the stone age, or the transition from whale oil to petroleum. The difference between then and now was all these alternative energy dense resources existed but lacked knowledge of exploitation. So tell me cornucopians, what is ready and waiting and bubbling out of the ground now?
There is a revolutionary break through waiting to take us into the next era of the peak entropy cycle, however, it doesn't necessarily derive from the lab. (And no, it has nothing to do with bare little bottoms ascending to heaven). Nor does it mean that the path into our evolution will be without pain and loss. There are no guarantees in this universe, and even entire galaxies can be consumed.
In closing, I caution about the "techno-genie" and he may not be able to deliver all three wishes. We may only get one. As a species to date we have done some remarkable things - and some deplorable. However, we should not misconstrue our role in the universe as it stands now. Can the species continue with the entropy rate we are currently in? I highly doubt it.
It doesn't matter if the issue is dressed up in environmental concerns or energy crisis, the problem is still the same. We have met the natural energy transformation rate for the ecosystem for which we depend and that's it folks. That's all she wrote.
An interesting view, though, as you may have noticed, it is one that I disagree with.
The only real answer to that is maybe, maybe not. Off the top of my head, supposing solar power can be reduced to $0.30cents/kw installed, which is not impossible. We would seem then to have enormously more room to play with, and your comparison would no longer be valid.
It's the sort of thing we can only really know after the event.
The assumption that you choose to make doesn't really seem to get us anywhere, and we would be fools if we missed something we could have done because we had assumed nothing could be done.
We aren't even beginning to try to cut population growth. Pregnancies are starting every day. We could distribute birth control, fund education campaigns, even offer to pay women to get tubes tied after they've had 2, 3, 4 kids.
With regard to population growth, I suggest that you take a look at the work of Hans Rosling www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92 . In this brilliant presentation he reveals some real surprises.
Are you ready for soilent green, because you know I am yea-YEA!
I think you are right that yields will increase. I think rice is probably the only crop that is experiencing maximum yield and that is only in some places so far.
The yield per acre should continue to rise but it is not clear that world production will rise ever higher. Both depletion of fossil water and the loss of ice and snow at high elevations may reduce the amount of land that can be cultivated. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update71.htm
So, the breakthroughs that may be needed could have more to do with reestablishing the climate that we and our ecosystem are adapted to rather than the incremental improvement in yield that we may expect as a result of improved farming methods.
In some ways the title of you post needs to go back again I think: "Do we have questions?" If we are concentrating on the wrong problem, oil rather than climate, then the answers we get to end up lacking relevance.
Chris
Aw come on Robert, HeadingOut provided the entire years yield information for the whole industry association. Even the most basic of thinkers would realise that some averaging and ranging is required, tempered with weather cyclic fluctuations (who hasn't heard of El Nino these days). This is the best piece of detailed information that I have seen put up to qualify an argument in some time. And the Brazil comment, I've gone to some trouble over a number of years to highlight what is possible with a given amount of land and to point out that what they do they do with just 2% of their farm land. But that is Brazil. What is the strength of each individual country. And for the record iceland has methyl hydrate as its strength.
HeadingOut,s comment is right on the money. It is the sum of solutions that will give us a future, not anyone individual technology. Complicating the picture is the future environment, which almost certainly will rearrange solutions and locations, if not eliminate whole possibilities altogether. We do not know from this vantage point what will be workable in 30 years time.
Personally I am with him in his preference. Algae created all of the oil in the first place. I think that they are the front runners to survive global warming as a storage energy source in the future.
Even the most basic of thinkers would realise that some averaging and ranging is required, tempered with weather cyclic fluctuations (who hasn't heard of El Nino these days).
Are you serious? Have you not seen some of the recent comments on the board, where a best result is extrapolated across an industry? I see that sort of cherry-picking happen all the time, and that's what my comment was directed at. As I said, I didn't say HO was doing it, but I think he would agree that there is a tendency from some to do it - and it can distort policy decisions when it is done by people in positions of authority (like Vinod Khosla).
While I think R&D into mining and resource extraction will naturally rise in the near term (I've seen some robotic mining R&D posts around) I think we are past the point that this will do anything other than moderate the decline rate. Spending on this will happen naturally.
At the same time, I'll bet more money comes available for R&D on alternatives, both from governments and vulture capitalists. An embarrassment of riches, given the way such a vital area has been treated to date.
However its a scale time issue and from my perspective there are only a few things that are capable of scaling fast enough to prevent a feedback disaster scenario.
1) NOT doing certain things. This can scale extremely fast and I'd expect to see the return of updated versions of this poster.
Cutting many business trips, commuting and other usages will provide breathing space. The trick is not to lose focus.
2) Tool based approaches, providing the infrastructure and smarts to utilise multiple new energy sources is the best approach today. For instance its a fair bet that distributed production will come to the fore, so a grid that can cope and grid tie inverters that cost sensible amounts are worth the investment today. Smart meters and smart pricing is also something that can be done today, as is smart journey sharing.
3) Worldview mods. People still tut at high prices and expect a no shortage. That's mentality needs to change if wider scale changes are to happen. We need a spot of memetic engineering to spread the idea quickly, like a virus.
Re #1: I'm surprised at the number of people I run into lately who *already* are scaling back on traveling. Just last night at our sons' year end track party, a friend whose family is in so. CA said he just doesn't think they'll drive this year due to cost (he quoted figures), and flying is out too. The meme may be spreading much faster than we think.
Hey garyp, how do you get pictures into post? I didn't see where I could do that on the formating options?
By using the IMG tag in HTML.
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_IMG.asp
That should get you moving in the right direction.
Below the comment box is a "File attachments" line. If you click on that it allows you to upload an image, and gives a source ID for it. To insert the picture you then use the line (img src="sourceID") (but replacing the () with the arrow symbols) and it should appear. To avoid overriding the boundaries of many folks screens I suggest you use an image that is smaller than 6 inches across.
I'm guessing only special users like yourself get the file attachments options. Us mortals have to host the file elsewhere. One of the easiest is to use imageshack as you don't have to register.
Visit http://www.imageshack.us/ and upload your pic. Then use the direct
URL as the image source.
eg
<img src="URL">This will display the image at the URL rather than the above line.
I'm guessing only special users like yourself get the file attachments options.
Bah.
Anyplace where one can 'host' the image is 'good 'nuf'.
Be it on your own server at a MAE (from the part of the IPv4 swamp), or some free-bee place, or associated to your login/account at your ISP.
'Tis nothing more than undersanding "Web .1" - basic HTML.
If your solutions to the near-to-mid-term energy problem consist of ethanol and improved extraction, then I don't think you're too far from a Luddite yourself. Given, I agree that these two sources you mention are part of the solution, but if they are the only solutions then we are in serious trouble.
A list of potential mitigations/solutions:
EFFICIENCY/CONSERVATION
1. Increase CAFE standards on all new automobiles on a year-on-year basis. Make the increases aggressive and scaled.
2. TAX sales of inefficient vehicles based on mileage -- SUVs etc.
3. Provide TAX breaks on sales of efficient vehicles based on mileage -- small cars, hybrids, motorcycles, scooters, etc.
4. Provide legislative means for registering electric golf carts for roads in small communities/localities.
5. Provide tax incentives for community biking inititives -- bike paths to work etc.
6. Provide a tax subsidy that pays corporate employees an extra $2,000 per year to walk, bike, or take public transport to work.
7. Provide a similar subsidy for employees whose vehicles average 40+ mpg. Raise the mpg rate year on year.
8. Create incentives for expanding, improving, and constructing new public transportation (buses, light rail, etc.)
NEW ENERGY RESOURCES
1. Provide increased legislative support for wind, solar, and nuclear energy. These are energy resources we can use to improve our energy posture TODAY. Fusion is hardly even a potential. It's useless in much the same way that fuel cells were useless in 2000.
2. Stop construction of gas and coal powerplants.
3. Replace gas and coal with wind, solar and nuclear.
4. Develop the smart grid.
5. Develop energy storage.
6. Provide cost sharing/tax incentives for installing home PV arrays. California's million rooftops program is a good model for national adoption.
NEW NON-FOSSIL FUEL MACHINE TECHNOLOGY
1. Provide a comprehensive plan for transitioning national ICE production to V2G production. Put in place a 5, 10, 15 and 20 year roadmap. Add imputs from new non-fossil fuel energy sources.
2. Stop EPA meddling in state programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve efficiency. Provide incentives for state innovations development of transformative technology.
3. Continue biofuels development with an eye to protecting food resources and non-competition with crops. Cap corn consumption for ethanol at 20 percent total national supply with a look toward stabilizing at 10 percent as new biofuels come onstream.
HUSBANDING THE OIL SUPPLY
1. Incentives for developing new extraction technology.
2. Keep wells producing as long as possible.
3. Look to incentivize transition of oil, coal and gas away from fuel source to material resource (oil is too precious to burn).
Funding of 80 to 150 billion per year until the crisis is over.
Just the act of putting these kinds of programs in place would provide a raft of mitigation that would expand over time into solutions. We are in for pain, certainly. But ethanol and new well tech, alone, aren't going to get us out of this. More likely, relying on those two solutions alone would result in a few people becoming rather wealthy while the rest of us grow even more poor. Terrible Peak Oil mitigation model and immoral to boot. Furthermore, I think it would be easier and more cost effective to transition away from oil as a transportation fuel than to sink loads of money into previous failed enterprises like oil shales.
We have solutions available now. None are ideal. But together, they can help us move away from oil and create a more sustainable future.
Hmm! I must be writing more than usually obscurely today. No, I did not say that ethanol and improved extraction were the only solutions. But at the same time there needs to be a degree of reality in the discussion. The transition from ICE is likely to take at least 20 years (check with Iceland). We don't have that time available (just read Euan's excellent post below). And, sadly, this is not an academic exercise.