Hey Jones, I also noticed this story on the blog, and I'm glad you mentioned it. It's a great example of how lies are generated and propagated by Mr. Bush and his associates. Here is the actual quote from the SOTUA.
"Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.)" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html So let's look at the DOE chart of oil imports to the US. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Out total imports for 2005 were 11500 barrels per day. Our imports from the "Middle East" for that period was 2287 barrels per day. So if we cut our imports "from the Middle East" by 75 percent that would be 1715 barrels per day, or an expected reduction of 15 percent of total imports by 2025. So what Mr. Bush is actually proposing ( and this was verified by journalists the next day by asking Sam Bodman, erstwhile oilman and current secretary of energy ) is a 15 percent replacement in 20 years time with alt energy, and that in current numbers rather than predicted future usage. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13767738.htm The genius of this lie is that few people will consciously hear the "Middle East" part, and if they do are largely ignorant of where the bulk of our oil comes from. So rather than doing the legwork and determining the actual value from the misleading claim, what they take away is... "Just as sure as the sun rises from the east, various groups have reacted rather favorably to President George W. Bush's declaration of America's "addiction" to oil, which he proposes to cut down by 75% over the next 20 years." http://www.rengen.info/renewableenergy/66.html See how that works? K. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Renewable Energy Blog ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.rengen.info/ The Regen blogster's too-tame Dodge Dart is in need of some 'pimping' it would seem. (unless you are around teenagers, you may not know that this word nowadays refers to the popular MTV show 'pimp my ride'). He states: "Just as sure as the sun rises from the east, various groups have reacted rather favorably to President George W. Bush's declaration of America's "addiction" to oil, which he proposes to cut down by 75% over the next 20 years." [Interesting that this is both achievable and underway - even if Bush and DoE did nothing, zero, nada... and let free market forces continue the present trend of alternative - but with proactive intervention, how long would it take for oxidized fuels to supplant 75% of our addiction ? Ans: You may be surprised that our Prez is being conservative in the "20 years" estimate] "One such group, which is beginning to gain significance in terms of number and importance, are domestic ethanol producers in the US. Currently, US Ethanol producers are the largest alternative fuel producers, doubling their production of 2002 to 4.0 billion gallons in 2005. Ethanol in the US is currently produced from corn, amounting to about 14% of the total corn consumption and supplying roughly 3% of the total gasoline supply." [Hmm... lets see doubling every two years sounds a lot like what we have seen as a sustainable rate in microelectronics - BUT - is there enough available land? Ans: not for corn -no - but there is enough subgrade-coal] This is possible because oil is no longer cheap. At $25 per barrel, oil really is addictive but at present levels of $50 per barrel or higher, sprouting ethanol plants all over the Midwestern part of the USA make sense, prompting experts to say that by the end of the year, the US' ethanol production capacity may rise to 5.0 billion gallons a year. [That is actually below expectations for a two-year doubling rate - which requires the year-to-year rate increase of slightly over 40%] "To curb USA's oil addiction, ethanol may not be enough. But it is a start. Right now, it is the most viable and competitive alternative fuel available and as proven by countries such as Brazil, can replace nearly all oil requirements. Of course there are many other alternative energy resources available which will be developed at a faster rate, now that there is government pull and technology push." [The very best resource - far better than this corn --> ethanol stopgap measure is subgrade-coal --> methanol But this does require large investment which is only possible with a DoE pump mandate to go to 50% oxidized fuel content ASAP] Bottom line - and let me pimp the blogster's ride here: If DoE wants to move off the sidelines and into the arena - and really get proactive in a national energy policy - and "do the smart thing": which is to shift some of the oxidized fuel content from ethanol to methanol, keeping those petrobucks at home instead of in the mid-East then - yes -we can probably sustain the necessary 40% growth rate for the very few years (six) which it would take to eliminate foreign oil in the USA - with a "Manhattan" approach. This would probably require a mandated "mix" at the pump of 50/50 within two years - even without new Alaska oil, since the USA does have severely depleted domestic oil fields which are coming back into production due to the high price of crude (market forces). IOW - we could get there (off of our foreign oil addiction) by the year 2012 (an ominous sounding year) but this would require about 15-20 expensive large methanol plants, and the dreaded strip mining of cattle grazing land - on the huge Western deposits of subgrade-coal ... which land is now used for minimal economic benefit, and can be returned to that use later once the coal is gone. BTW the best sites for large wind farms might well be adjacent to such coal-to-methanol plants in order to minimize the otherwise marketable fuel which is burned on site for the conversion process. You may say: No way! these plants take years of 'red-tape', even decades, to get licensed, built and going full steam. To which I respond, 'yes,' under normal conditions, this would require too long to "wean the junkie" off his fix - BUT there is the analog to 'intervention' which is the drastic variety of cure which is now called-for by our helpless dependency. In an historical note, at the time of another crisis - the largest plant-complex in the world at the time (by a factor of 2), the plant that won the war: the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, was operational in 6 months - even thought we weren't even sure that the technology would work at the time that groundbreaking commenced, and even though the blueprints for the facility had not been finished. That kind of 24/7 national commitment may be what is called for in this time of impending crisis. http://www.y12.doe.gov/about/history.php BTW that Complex was constructed as part of the World War II Manhattan Project. Construction began with the first shovelful of dirt turned at Y-12 in February 1943, and operations began in November of that year. It is only when you get to these large $ billion investments, requiring national "will power" that DoE and the Prez - and sincere commitments by everyone other than the Sierra Club, can make a gigantic difference in timing. But will they find the necessary national will power in the Beltway ? ... that is, err... instead of trying to take credit for what the American farmer is already doing on his own without much help... Now, this fast track ride is the looking more like Daisy's 'Cuda than the old Dart, so 'pimp that ride', Mr. Regen Blogster.... Jones
