[Biofuel] The Seven Myths of Energy Independence

[Keith Addison]

MotherJones.com / News / Feature

The Seven Myths of Energy Independence

Why forging a sustainable energy future is dependent on foreign oil

Paul Roberts

May 01 , 2008

Myth #1

Energy Independence Is Good

On February 1, 2006, Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's 
ambassador to Washington, arrived at the White House in a state of 
agitation. The night before, in his State of the Union address, 
President Bush had declared the United States to be "addicted to oil, 
which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." He had 
announced plans to "break this addiction" by developing 
alternatives-including a multibillion-dollar subsidized ramp-up of 
biofuels-and had boldly stated that by 2025, America could cut 
imports from Gulf states by three-quarters and "make our dependence 
on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." "I was taken aback," 
Prince Faisal later told cnn, "and I raised this point with 
government officials."

Two years on, anyone who's been to a gas station or a grocery store 
knows the prince had very little to worry about. Despite supposedly 
bold initiatives such as last year's Energy Independence and Security 
Act, America is no freer from foreign oil: Since 2006, imports have 
remained steady at about 13 million barrels every day, while the 
price for each of those barrels has jumped by $30. And though federal 
efforts to encourage biofuel production have significantly boosted 
output, our heavily subsidized ethanol refiners now use so much corn 
(closing in on a third of the total crop) that prices for all grains 
have soared, sparking inflation here at home and food riots abroad.

Okay, so maybe ethanol's critics are right, and turning food into 
fuel isn't the smartest way to wean ourselves from imported oil. But 
the deeper lesson here isn't that Washington backed the wrong weapon 
in the war for energy independence, but that most policymakers-and 
Americans generally-still think "energy independence" is a goal we 
can, or should, achieve. Nine in ten voters say the country is too 
dependent on foreign crude. Every major presidential hopeful 
formulated some kind of strategy for energy liberation (Rudy Giuliani 
unveiled his at a nascar race), and between 2001 and 2006 the number 
of media references to "energy independence" jumped by a factor of 
eight.

And on the surface, the argument seems solid. Imported oil, some 60 
percent of the oil we use, exposes our economy and politics to 
stresses halfway around the world (bin Laden calls it "the umbilical 
cord and lifeline of the crusader community"). It also increases our 
already massive trade imbalance, which must be corrected by 
ever-greater federal borrowing, and funnels tens of billions of 
dollars to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela-countries 
that are unfriendly and, in some cases, actively anti-American. 
What's not to like about energy independence?

In a word, everything. Despite its immense appeal, energy 
independence is a nonstarter-a populist charade masquerading as 
energy strategy that's no more likely to succeed (and could be even 
more damaging) than it was when Nixon declared war on foreign oil in 
the 1970s. Not only have we no realistic substitute for the oceans of 
oil we import, but many of the crash programs being touted as a way 
to quickly develop oil replacements-"clean coal," for example, or 
biofuels-come at a substantial environmental and political cost. And 
even if we had good alternatives ready to deploy-a fleet of 
superefficient cars, say, or refineries churning out gobs of cheap 
hydrogen for fuel cells-we'd need decades, and great volumes of 
energy, including oil, to replace all the cars, pipelines, 
refineries, and other bits of the old oil infrastructure-and thus 
decades in which we'd depend on oil from our friends in Riyadh, 
Moscow, and Caracas. Paradoxically, to build the energy economy that 
we want, we're going to lean heavily on the energy economy that we 
have.

None of which is exactly news. Thoughtful observers have been trying 
to debunk energy independence since Nixon's time. And yet the dream 
refuses to die, in no small part because it offers political cover 
for a whole range of controversial initiatives. Ethanol refiners wave 
the banner of independence as they lobby Congress for massive 
subsidies. Likewise for electric utilities and coal producers as they 
push for clean coal and a nuclear renaissance. And it shouldn't 
surprise that some of the loudest proponents of energy liberation 
support plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other 
off-limits areas to oil drilling-despite the fact that such moves 
would, at best, cut imports by a few percentage points. In the 
doublespeak of today's energy lexicon, says Julia Bovey of the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, "'energy independen

Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Mike Weaver]

I have a 2002 Golf: on a flat road at 1850 rpm or about 59 mph, it gets 
close to 60 mpg.  On I 95 in the US, where it is impossible to go less than
70 mph without being killed by a trucker, the mileage drops into the 
high 40's, at 80 or so, into the low 40's.

If I had another gear (6th) I think it would do better.

-Mike

Brian Schneider wrote:

>Well,
>I happen to drive a VW Jetta TDI that does get good fuel milage.  I  
>consistently get between 45 and 49 mpg and can go over 600 miles per  
>tank of fuel.  But I do notice that my milage does drop a little when  
>I am on the interstate driving the speed limit or better (to keep up  
>with traffic) as compared to when I am on the back roads doing 55.
>Brian
>On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Perry Jones wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Then mandate higher fuel efficiency in vehicles.  Oh, I know, put the
>>onus on the
>>victims as has been done throughout history.  What do you drive?  What
>>is your
>>fuel efficiency at 30 mph?  When it matches mine at 75 mph then  
>>talk to me.
>>Otherwise, this ain't one of the solutions.
>>Perry Jones
>>
>>
>>Brian Schneider wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So then what would be the suggestion?  Sometimes laws are necessary
>>>to help or protect those who can't or won't do it them selves.
>>>If on a national level if lowering the speed limit 10 to 15 mph would
>>>help decrease our dependance on foreign oil or any oil for that
>>>matter then it should be addressed regardless of how popular or
>>>unpopular it is.
>>>Granted there are some laws that are nonsense, but they are necessary
>>>because without most of them there would be utter chaos.
>>>Brian
>>>On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Chip Mefford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>___
>>Biofuel mailing list
>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>>
>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>>
>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000  
>>messages):
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>  
>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Brian Schneider]

Well,
I happen to drive a VW Jetta TDI that does get good fuel milage.  I  
consistently get between 45 and 49 mpg and can go over 600 miles per  
tank of fuel.  But I do notice that my milage does drop a little when  
I am on the interstate driving the speed limit or better (to keep up  
with traffic) as compared to when I am on the back roads doing 55.
Brian
On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Perry Jones wrote:

> Then mandate higher fuel efficiency in vehicles.  Oh, I know, put the
> onus on the
> victims as has been done throughout history.  What do you drive?  What
> is your
> fuel efficiency at 30 mph?  When it matches mine at 75 mph then  
> talk to me.
> Otherwise, this ain't one of the solutions.
> Perry Jones
>
>
> Brian Schneider wrote:
>
>> So then what would be the suggestion?  Sometimes laws are necessary
>> to help or protect those who can't or won't do it them selves.
>> If on a national level if lowering the speed limit 10 to 15 mph would
>> help decrease our dependance on foreign oil or any oil for that
>> matter then it should be addressed regardless of how popular or
>> unpopular it is.
>> Granted there are some laws that are nonsense, but they are necessary
>> because without most of them there would be utter chaos.
>> Brian
>> On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Chip Mefford wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000  
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Chip Mefford]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Chip Mefford wrote:
| Chris Burck wrote:
| | josh, this is like claiming the engine uses less fuel when it's shut
- ->SNIP
|
| Well,
- -> SNIP
| It's assumed. Way back, decades ago, there was a speculative fiction
| story in Road & Track called 'A nice morning drive' the plot of which

Lol!
I had figured this story had been long since lost to the dust
of time, but no, someone else liked it apparently, and
has a copy online;

http://www.2112.net/xanadu/articles/a_nice_morning_drive.htm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIEeSNlwL/NsEHg6sRAm8YAJ4i7uonXg1kt/AEnUlDNFtZrwLvkwCeJppH
Go+DVAAe2RSFoEJvlR1wyqo=
=wJRY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Chip Mefford]

a harmonic drop in the drag somewhere
in the low 50s somewhere, but the inverse square law still applies.

Driving down the highway, isn't a static thing, it's dynamic and
the factors that play into fuel consumption are legion. It's completely
possible to get better mileage at 65 than 55, but highly unlikely.
And nothing, and I mean nothing is worse, than lock-step, high density
traffic spaced out far enough to be buffeted about by the turbulence,
but unable to take advantage of the low pressure, blah blah blah,
in other words, the over-crowded US highway, here in the east anyway.
Basically, the whole model is broken, it doesn't work, and it needs
to be done away with.

A nationwide 55mph speed limit is a piece of ducttape over a rent
in a ocean freighter's hull. It's a gesture, but that's all it is.

The 'Interstate' system is a bad idea. an overcrowded interstate
system is a idea that's orders of magnitude worse. But that's
what we have, and it needs to go away.





mornings



|
| On 4/25/08, Josh Boltrek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Very well put Chip.  Too many people are overly-anxious to demand laws to
|> fix what ought to be dealt with using common sense and/or market/social
|> forces.  Very often, laws are enacted to affect change for things
which are
|> changing anyway (say, in response to voter 'demand for action').
This can
|> often lead to a backlash, as the results tend to swing too far in the
|> desired direction.  This is because the legislators are simply
implimenting
|> what is often happening on its own.  Thus, we spend half our time
|> legislating what 'ought to be the law,' and the other half trying to
figgure
|> out how to effectively rein-in the results of those laws.
|>
|> On the topic of speed limits specifically: Many cars now are actually
more
|> efficient at 65 MPH than they are at 55 MPH (due to gearing,
aerodynamics,
|> better tyres, etc).  The other thing to consider when thinking about
speed
|> limits is time savings, and how that can affect accident rates.  Many
|> studies have shown that accident rates have decreased with the higher
speed
|> on US highways.  This seems to be because drivers do not have to spend
|> nearly as much time monitoring the speedometer, and they can relax more-
|> simply driving at a speed that is comfortable.  This leads to less
fatigue,
|> and therefore fewer accidents.  Cleaning up accidents takes a significant
|> amount of time and resources, and building new cars to replace
crashed ones
|> uses even more.
|>
|> Therefore, I put forward the idea that leaving the speed limits where
they
|> are will ultimately use less fuel than reducing the speed limits
will.  If
|> petrol gets expensive enough, people will naturally begin to demand
higher
|> efficiency from their cars, and drive at the most efficient speed for
their
|> particular car.  The most notable result of the 55 MPH speed limit
was not
|> actually fuel savings, but rather massive revenue gains for the Highway
|> Patrol.
|>
|> Cheers,
|>
|> Josh
|>
|>
|>
|> - Original Message 
|> From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
|> Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 2:46:30 AM
|> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now
|>
|> Brian Schneider wrote:
|>> Hello,
|>> Just a comment, why don't we in the US do something else that was
|>> done in the 70's oil crisis...drop the speed limit back to 55.
|> There were a *lot* of problems with this. I'm not going to
|> go into it all, in fact, I'm barely going to scratch the
|> surface. But essentially, the nationwide 55mph speed limit
|> was about as popular as prohibition, and caused many of
|> the same problems.
|>
|> In interest of full disclosure,
|> when ever I hear 'There ought to be a law",
|> I duck.
|>
|> We have plenty of laws. a few orders of magnitude
|> too many I'd say. In fact, I'd point to the
|> current state of affairs as my primary exhibit
|> in the 'laws don't fix anything' presentation.
|>
|>
|> ___
|> Biofuel mailing list
|> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
|> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
|>
|> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
|> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
|>
|> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
|> messages):
|> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
|>
|>
|>   Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
|> www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
|> -- next part --
|> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
|> URL: /

Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Chris Burck]

josh, this is like claiming the engine uses less fuel when it's shut
than when it's running.  aerodymics aren't magic.  a vehicle moving at
65mph is still encountering more air resistance than when moving at
55mph.  there are many interesting aspects in automobile technology
today, yet today's average vehicle consumes more fuel than in years
past.  it *may* be that today's vehicles are as aerodynamically
efficient at 65mph as earlier vehicles were at 55mph, but that seems
doubtful and in itself means little.  gearing?  a vehicle in 6th gear
(wish they'd started making them decades ago) will always consume less
fuel at 55mph than at 65mph.  can you provide any citations to back up
these rather outlandish claims you make?

On 4/25/08, Josh Boltrek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very well put Chip.  Too many people are overly-anxious to demand laws to
> fix what ought to be dealt with using common sense and/or market/social
> forces.  Very often, laws are enacted to affect change for things which are
> changing anyway (say, in response to voter 'demand for action').  This can
> often lead to a backlash, as the results tend to swing too far in the
> desired direction.  This is because the legislators are simply implimenting
> what is often happening on its own.  Thus, we spend half our time
> legislating what 'ought to be the law,' and the other half trying to figgure
> out how to effectively rein-in the results of those laws.
>
> On the topic of speed limits specifically: Many cars now are actually more
> efficient at 65 MPH than they are at 55 MPH (due to gearing, aerodynamics,
> better tyres, etc).  The other thing to consider when thinking about speed
> limits is time savings, and how that can affect accident rates.  Many
> studies have shown that accident rates have decreased with the higher speed
> on US highways.  This seems to be because drivers do not have to spend
> nearly as much time monitoring the speedometer, and they can relax more-
> simply driving at a speed that is comfortable.  This leads to less fatigue,
> and therefore fewer accidents.  Cleaning up accidents takes a significant
> amount of time and resources, and building new cars to replace crashed ones
> uses even more.
>
> Therefore, I put forward the idea that leaving the speed limits where they
> are will ultimately use less fuel than reducing the speed limits will.  If
> petrol gets expensive enough, people will naturally begin to demand higher
> efficiency from their cars, and drive at the most efficient speed for their
> particular car.  The most notable result of the 55 MPH speed limit was not
> actually fuel savings, but rather massive revenue gains for the Highway
> Patrol.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 2:46:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now
>
> Brian Schneider wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Just a comment, why don't we in the US do something else that was
> > done in the 70's oil crisis...drop the speed limit back to 55.
>
> There were a *lot* of problems with this. I'm not going to
> go into it all, in fact, I'm barely going to scratch the
> surface. But essentially, the nationwide 55mph speed limit
> was about as popular as prohibition, and caused many of
> the same problems.
>
> In interest of full disclosure,
> when ever I hear 'There ought to be a law",
> I duck.
>
> We have plenty of laws. a few orders of magnitude
> too many I'd say. In fact, I'd point to the
> current state of affairs as my primary exhibit
> in the 'laws don't fix anything' presentation.
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>   Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
> www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080425/ad0ead5a/attachment.html
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combine

Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

[Josh Boltrek]

Very well put Chip.  Too many people are overly-anxious to demand laws to fix 
what ought to be dealt with using common sense and/or market/social forces.  
Very often, laws are enacted to affect change for things which are changing 
anyway (say, in response to voter 'demand for action').  This can often lead to 
a backlash, as the results tend to swing too far in the desired direction.  
This is because the legislators are simply implimenting what is often happening 
on its own.  Thus, we spend half our time legislating what 'ought to be the 
law,' and the other half trying to figgure out how to effectively rein-in the 
results of those laws.

On the topic of speed limits specifically: Many cars now are actually more 
efficient at 65 MPH than they are at 55 MPH (due to gearing, aerodynamics, 
better tyres, etc).  The other thing to consider when thinking about speed 
limits is time savings, and how that can affect accident rates.  Many studies 
have shown that accident rates have decreased with the higher speed on US 
highways.  This seems to be because drivers do not have to spend nearly as much 
time monitoring the speedometer, and they can relax more- simply driving at a 
speed that is comfortable.  This leads to less fatigue, and therefore fewer 
accidents.  Cleaning up accidents takes a significant amount of time and 
resources, and building new cars to replace crashed ones uses even more.  

Therefore, I put forward the idea that leaving the speed limits where they are 
will ultimately use less fuel than reducing the speed limits will.  If petrol 
gets expensive enough, people will naturally begin to demand higher efficiency 
from their cars, and drive at the most efficient speed for their particular 
car.  The most notable result of the 55 MPH speed limit was not actually fuel 
savings, but rather massive revenue gains for the Highway Patrol.

Cheers,

Josh



- Original Message 
From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 2:46:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] We Need To Solve The Oil Crisis--Now

Brian Schneider wrote:
> Hello,
> Just a comment, why don't we in the US do something else that was  
> done in the 70's oil crisis...drop the speed limit back to 55.

There were a *lot* of problems with this. I'm not going to
go into it all, in fact, I'm barely going to scratch the
surface. But essentially, the nationwide 55mph speed limit
was about as popular as prohibition, and caused many of
the same problems.

In interest of full disclosure,
when ever I hear 'There ought to be a law",
I duck.

We have plenty of laws. a few orders of magnitude
too many I'd say. In fact, I'd point to the
current state of affairs as my primary exhibit
in the 'laws don't fix anything' presentation.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. 
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080425/ad0ead5a/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/