A crisis of our own design
The chorus of voices crying for the United States to allow unfettered access to Big Oil to all oil deposits, anywhere so that we can "reduce our energy dependence" grows louder and more raucous every day. It has entered the presidential campaign and it will doubtless be an issue in various congressional campaigns, especially in those states – Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, California – where offshore drilling and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge are at play.Sadly, here is the reality: if all known U.S. sources were tapped, and if the U.S. used solely oil produced here or off our shores, we would have enough oil to last a little more than three years at a consumption rate of 21 million barrels per day.
Experts say there are about 21 billion barrels of accessible U.S. oil to be had, using conventional extraction methods. The country's reserves peaked in 1970 with the discovery of the Alaskan North Slope oil. That was the last time we could produce what we consume. Since then, the U.S.'s own "peak oil" moment has come and gone.
Opening up currently closed areas to production are not going to change that. At best, it will forestall the inevitable. From a standpoint of future stability, the U.S. should not be looking to become energy self-sufficient, solely because it cannot. Any effort to do so in the short term could irrevocably damage the trade corridors we have established with the countries that do have vast amounts of exportable oil.
The same people who want to open up ANWR to unlimited oil exploration frequently also say that if the U.S. were to develop all the alternative sources of oil that lie within our boundaries, the energy crisis would end for 400 years. And while there is a kernel of truth in this, it is disingenuous to the extreme when you look at the realities of extracting oil from shale, from coal and from sand tar. If you want to learn a little something about those sources, click here.
If you're not into reading government reports, I'll distill it for you: while available shale deposits, primarily in the Green River formation of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, hold 2.5 trillion barrels of oil, no more than 800 billion of that is recoverable. Lots, you say, except for this tiny, niggling detail: no commercial shale-to-oil extraction process exists, and an exhaustive study by the Rand Corp. (click here) says it won't exist for at least 20 years. And while it might become commercially viable, there are environmental and socio-economic costs that might be "show stoppers" before any oil is ever extracted.
Likewise, extracting oil from coal, while more commercially feasible, at present carries a high cost. All of the existing liquid-fuel production methods release carbon dioxide, more than is released in standard oil production. The increase of carbon dioxide emissions would add incrementally to global warming. While computer models suggest carbon sequestration could eliminate this problem by pumping the CO2 underground, there are no demonstration projects that either confirm this as a solution or confirm that sequestration doesn't have its own environmental risks.
I can already hear some of you muttering under your breaths about "tree huggers" and "enviro terrorists." But you should know that an awful lot of your fellow Americans do, in fact, value the environment and do believe that it is our responsibility NOT to burn down our planet in this lifetime. What good is having coal provide all the oil we could want in this country if the concomitant result is climate change that makes areas of this country – and this world – uninhabitable? Where is the gain?
Here is the harsh reality: only two nations, Singapore and Canada, consume more oil per capita than the U.S. We are up to 68.9 barrels PER PERSON, according to government statistics, behind Canada's 69.8 barrels, and it's a LOT colder up there. The U.S. has for five decades ignored reality (the "peak oil" theory came out in the late 1950s, suggesting that world oil production would follow an upward curve until consumption outpaced reserve supply, at which point a mirror-image downward curve would occur until lights out). Presidents from Eisenhower to Bush II have turned a blind eye to realistic energy policy, and for every step forward we've taken as the result of public policy, we've taken three back.
We have gone to the facile to answer the complex. View, if you will, the rush to wind power generation. While wind power should no doubt be part of a comprehensive energy portfolio, the intermittent nature of the supply means that it can only supplement, not supplant, more reliable energy sources. Yet because building wind towers and throwing them onto the grid is a simple, "feel good" form of going green, we support the hell out of it. At least hydropower is constant and nonpolluting; other potential primary sources are nuclear power (yeah, jump on that one) and clean-burning fossil fuel plants.
The 800-pound gorilla in the corner, however, is and continues to be gasoline. No country can match the U.S. love of the automobile, reliance on the automobile, inability to divest itself of the automobile. You would have thought that somewhere in the past 50 years, SOMEBODY in industry or the government would have said "We're not going to get rid of cars – we'd better find a way to make them work with less gasoline."
But what happens here? For a decade, U.S. consumers and manufacturers put all their efforts into building and buying big, heavy gas guzzlers. Hummers – you gotta be kidding me! Why? If ever there were a symbol of our excesses, that should be it. Now, with gas at more than $4 a gallon, every U.S. automaker is suddenly tooling back truck and SUV production (and laying thousands off) because nobody can afford a 12-mile-per-gallon vehicle. Duh.
IF somebody could have seen the inevitable, we could have alternative fuels and alternative engines smoothly in production and available to reduce our energy consumption. We could have even developed, maybe, ways to extract oil from unconventional sources. But nobody did anything, and now it's tough to find hybrid cars and only in the past two years have fleet fuel economy numbers gone up. Fuel-cell engines, which run on hydrogen, could have been in place and a system of providing fuel for them could be well on the way to existing. With a little foresight 30 years ago, this crisis, wouldn't be.
But now it is, and the panicked voices are all crying out for half-assed solutions that are nothing more than more of the same. It's time for vision, for creativity – and for a little sacrifice. There's no reason the U.S. can't lead the way – except for a lack of will. It's time to find our backbone.
posted by Kentsboss @ 11:29 AM
9 Comments:
EXCELLENT! More people need to read this post.
Wind energy will be a necessary part of the U.S energy mix. And it will inevitably be one of the main industries of rural Northern NY within five years.
With NY State's Renewable Portfolio Standard officially pegged at "24% by 2013," and with all the NY wind maps showing that Cape Vincent and Lyme have some of NY State's best wind, we'd better start getting accustomed to the sight of wind turbines.
The state's hydro output is less than 15%. And even with the upwards of 160 turbines at Maple Ridge, NY's current wind output is less than 3%. And any energy company will tell you that solar is a no go in NY. So how does the state get to 24% renewable by 2013? Turbines, turbines, turbines.
So even if the current wind companies in Cape Vincent, Lyme, Clayton for some reason lose interest and decide to leave, other wind companies will be quick to take their place.
I used to be resistant to the idea of turbines in our area. But considering all the variables, I've decided to concede. The clear trend is for these turbines to get bigger and bigger. Right now, turbines are as tall as 425 feet, with one blade sticking straight up from the hub of the tower. If the current wind companies lose interest, the wind companies that take their place next year could be proposing 600 foot turbines.
John M
The fact of the matter is that wind power can be stored.
More oil is, indeed, not the answer. This country needs to move beyond the petroleum age. Capturing the sun's energy via highly efficient and affordable solar panels is the long term solution. Electricity needs to become the medium by which we propel, power and cool cars and homes. The free market and strong leadership can make it all happen within the next 10-15 years. Innovation and adaptation is this countries biggest strength. We just need to break the strangle hold of big oil and all it can happen. Given the advancements in battery technology, nano-technology, and multi spectrum solar panels (a good example are the panels currently powering the NASA owned Mars Rover's), the future looks very bright. Imagine literally thousands of homes and businesses becoming power producers and not just users....It's already within our grasp. We must not take our eyes off the prize. Don't let big oil distract you with this crazy idea of drilling for more oil.
You can't blame the NEOCONS for trying to exploit the shortage to rape the environment.
It worked for them on the North Slope.
I disagree that wind turbines of gargantuan size is what the future has in store for us. Instead, there may be a huge shift to more cost-effective, efficient and affordable micro-wind mills. Placed on residential, commercial and public buildings, these windmills can generate and store huge amounts of electricity if utilized on a large scale. Our very own Clarkson University is but one institution leading the way in developing this type of technology. On a related note to this thread, check out this article about the third generation biofuel:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4270240.html?series=19
I recently attended a national wind energy conference in Kingston, ON. Wind companies from all over North America and all over the world were in attendance.
From all I saw, and all I heard, I can tell you this with absolute certainty - turbines will be only be getting bigger. Micro-turbines do not exist, and wind companies are not interested in making turbines smaller. The larger rotor diameter, the more MW capacity.
So I agree with John M. With the NY RPS set at 24% by 2013, and the wind the way it is here, it's either 425 ft turbines with the current wind companies, or much taller if a new energy company took over.
Shawn B. Chaumont, NY
"It's time to find our backbone."
That's rich, coming from you, the guy who opposes wind turbines in the windiest areas of NY.
You can't have it both ways, Kentsboss, you can't criticise people for not embracing alternative energy and then whine when wind turbines are in your backyard.
JJ
Clean burning coal? It's still a fossil fuel in finite supply.
Hydropower? Sure, it's clean, but the power generated here gets sent downstate. Unless you live in Massena, you don't see much benefit.
Wind energy? Sounds great, but we need to make sure they're far enough way from residential areas so that if the worst happens no person or property will be destroyed. Oh, and the wind companies can talk about the novelty of the size of the towers and how tourists will flock to see them. Come on. How many people out there travel long distances to see the world's biggest ball of twine?
In a rural area, our dependence on gasoline is phenomenal. Many people work 20 miles away from where they live - too far to bike, or travel by horse, or whatever. That's just a fact about where we live. As for people in cities, they have other means of getting around and just choose not to because Americans have become too lazy to walk down the block to the local store. Some cities have put free bike programs in place where you can just borrow a bicycle to get around. That's a step in the right direction, but I think someone needs to start telling or urbanites that they're a big part of the problem and to get off their fat asses and walk.
The fact is that we can't wait for the government to act. We've been talking about alternative energy for decades now, but the oil companies' lobbyists have obviously trumped that need by lining our federal decisionmakers' pockets to keep them loyal. The fault lies with automakers, too. The technology for battery-powered vehicles has been around since the 1930s, but they have instead focused on big, gas-guzzling vehicles. By and large, they haven't even given a second thought to fuel economy, although they've had the technology to achieve that also, until the last few years. Even then, it's seemed like a pathetic attempt to placate consumers.
If we want to do something to keep our own costs down, preserve the environment, or whatever your personal goal happens to be, we have to keep it personal and focus on our own energy means and consumption. Solar cells and a small wind tower are looking pretty good right now for my house. A little investment up front could save a lot of money in the long run.
As for the gasoline, there's only so much we can do here to cut our consumption. Buy a fuel efficient car, walk whenever possible, and hope that some day soon someone will develop a vehicle that gets 90 miles to the gallon and is still within average consumers' reach.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home