« Abengoa to Announce US Cellulosic Ethanol Plant | Main | VW Bailing Out of Bluetec Alliance »
House Passes Energy Bill; Transportation Focus on Biofuels, Mass Transit and Plug-Ins
5 August 2007
On Saturday, the US House of Representatives passed its version of an Energy Bill (H.R.3221): “The New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.”
The bill, which integrates efforts from eleven House committees, establishes a wide range of long-term incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation initiatives, paid for primarily by the repeal of about $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies. It establishes a renewable power standard requiring all electric utilities to produce 15% of their power from wind, solar, biomass or other renewable sources by 2020. The bill does not address vehicle fuel economy.
On the transportation side, H.R.3221 focuses on three primary areas: biofuels, including biogas and biogas hybrids and plug-in; mass transit; and support for plug-in hybrids.
Some of the transportation-related sections of the bill include:
Title IV (Science and Technology), Subtitle E (Biofuels). Among the provisions of this subtitle of the bill, the “Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act” are:
A technology transfer center, established by the Department of Energy in cooperation with the department of Agriculture, that will make information available on research, development, and commercial application of technologies related to biofuels and biorefineries, including: biochemical and thermochemical conversion technologies capable of making fuels from lignocellulosic feedstocks; biotechnology processes capable of making biofuels with an emphasis on development of bio-refinery technologies using enzyme-based processing systems; biogas collection and production technologies suitable for vehicular use; cost-effective reforming technologies that produce hydrogen fuel from biogas sources; biogas production from cellulosic and recycled organic waste sources and advancement of gaseous storage systems; and other advanced processes and technologies that will enable the development of biofuels.
A research, development, and demonstration program for a biofuels distribution infrastructure.
A study on any research and development challenges inherent in increasing the proportion of biodiesel sold in the US to 2.5% of diesel fuel sold.
A study on research and development challenges inherent in increasing to 5% the transportation fuels sold in the United States fuel with biogas or a blend of biogas and natural gas.
Establishing at least 5 bioresearch centers that focus on biofuels.
Grants to eligible entities for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of biofuel production technologies in states with low rates of ethanol production, including low rates of production of cellulosic biomass ethanol.
Programs to increase energy efficiency in the operation of biorefineries, and to enable biorefineries that exclusively use corn grain or corn starch as a feedstock to produce ethanol to be retrofitted to accept a range of biomass, including lignocellulosic feedstocks.
A study on increasing the level of ethanol blended in gasoline in the US to from 10% to 40%.
A study on optimizing flex-fuel vehicles to use E85.
A study of engine durability and performance associated with the use of biodiesel.
A study a of methods of increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles using biogas by optimizing natural gas vehicle systems that can operate on biogas, including the advancement of vehicle fuel systems and the combination of hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid electric drive plat- forms with natural gas vehicle systems using biogas.
A report on the progress of the research and development that is being conducted on the use of algae as a feedstock for the production of biofuels.
Title V (Agriculture Energy). Among the provisions of the section of the bill are loan guarantees for the construction of biorefineries and biofuel plants. The section also extends the research cooperation between the departments of Energy and Agriculture.
Title VIII (Transportation and Infrastructure.) This title, the “Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007” establishes a Center for Climate Change and to plan, coordinate, and implement research, strategies and actions to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change, with special emphasis on research strategies and action to address the impacts of climate 21 change on transportation systems and infrastructure.
The bill has a number of provisions related to the support and development of public transportation and congestion-reduction, factoring in all modes of transport.
Title IX (Energy and Commerce), Subtitle E (Advanced Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles and Components). This section provides incentives for the conversion of vehicles to plug-ins as well as for the advancement of the enabling technology. Among the provisions are:
A program to provide guarantees of loans by private institutions for the construction of facilities for the manufacture of advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems that are developed and produced in the United States, including advanced lithium ion batteries and hybrid electrical system and component manufacturers and software designers.
A competitive program to provide grants on a cost-shared basis to State governments, local governments, metropolitan transportation authorities, air pollution control districts, private or nonprofit entities to carry out projects to encourage the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles or other “emerging” electric vehicle technologies.
Grants to support 5 demonstration programs to convert at least 1,000 vehicles in each program to plug-in hybrids, with the intention of determining how best to integrate plug-ins into the electric power grid and into the overall electricity infrastructure.
Incentives for medium- and heavy-duty hybrids,including hydraulic hybrids.
Inclusion of electric drive in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
A study of the benefits of plug-in hybrids and electric drive vehicles.
Title X (Tax Provisions), Subtitle B (Conservation), Part 1 (Transportation). This section establishes tax credits for the purchase of plug-in hybrids.
Resources:
August 5, 2007 in Biomass, Biomethane, Fuels, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (92) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20600102
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House Passes Energy Bill; Transportation Focus on Biofuels, Mass Transit and Plug-Ins:
Comments
Let's hope (but the chances are very slim) that PM Harper government will do the same and repeal the $2B+/yr direct and indirect subsidies to the Canadian Oil Industries.
They are doing very well with their record high profits. They don't need subsidies, specially with Oil at $75+/barrel.
The same $2B/yr could be applied to accellerate the development of clean alternative energies such as Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Waves and more efficient Hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs etc to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Posted by: | Aug 5, 2007 7:50:43 AM
There is not much point in reading about energy legislation until after Bush signs it and it becomes law. The 2005 Energy Bill was a pretty good bit of bipartisan legislation and we are seeing the positive results like ethanol production. About every segment of renewable energy is at capacity for building new infrastructure.
If the House and Senate try to gut what is working, Bush will veto it. Most of what I read here is taken credit for what has already accomplished. For exampls most states have already enacted 'a renewable power standard requiring all electric utilities to produce 15% of their power from wind, solar, biomass or other renewable sources by 2020'.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 5, 2007 8:27:36 AM
Unless the House passed two different energy bills Saturday, Bush has promised to veto this one because it doesn't promote domestic oil and gas production.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/washington/05energy.html?ei=5088&en=9b35e59c64641f66&ex=1343966400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1186329902-PBkqnuWjDOp5XtuvXj37gQ
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Aug 5, 2007 9:24:03 AM
repeal of about $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies
That'll guarantee a veto.
Posted by: jack | Aug 5, 2007 9:25:48 AM
All the renewable energy in the world aint going to mean diddly if we are $1.5 TRILLION behind in renewable steel and concrete spending. An increase in road use taxes is undeniable and inevitable.
Posted by: fred | Aug 5, 2007 9:27:49 AM
"That'll guarantee a veto."
Absolutely! As if the ongoing Iraq occupation to the tune of $500 Billions and untold amount of sweat and blood so far is not enough of a subsidy to the Oil Interest. This unlawful occupation is mainly to guarantee that the major Oil Corporations will have a stake in the huge Iraqi oil reserve, which can be extracted at very little cost, if the cost of war and bloodshed not counted.
"Pogo, I've seen the enemy, and it is us!"
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 5, 2007 10:59:20 AM
If Bush does veto this his popularity will hit an all time low I suspect. Hopefully it would mean even stronger legislation after he's gone.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 5, 2007 11:26:41 AM
I think that this bill might have the votes needed to bypass a veto attempt. It passed with over 53% of the vote in the house and if people get excited about the end of the corporate welfare for companies like the most profitable in the world, Exxon, more support might be garnered. I hope that constituents will get excited enough to contact their representatives just by the repeal of the Hummer tax break.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 5, 2007 11:28:35 AM
The number one thing to keep in mind about Bush for the rest of his presidency: He doesn't care one iota about his ratings. He's intent on trying to save his precious legacy and lock in as much of his extreme agenda as possible before he has to leave office. (The inherent contradiction between those two things seems to have completely eluded him and his inner circle.)
That means no meaningful steps will be taken on the energy or environmental fronts unless Congress can muster a veto-proof majority, which will happen only in the most extreme cases.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Aug 5, 2007 1:05:22 PM
Kit P:
If one could convince Karl Rove, who is Bush's resident political consultant, paid with tax money I might add, to pass the bill, Bush might sign it. The sticking point I see is elimination of the oil subsidies. It takes a big man to rise above what in effect means an indirect reduction in Big Oil campaign contributions to the Republican party. Can Bush do it?
Posted by: Lad | Aug 5, 2007 2:20:49 PM
What a farce this bill is. Read the highlights, research this, study that, report progress etc. Sell the sizzle not the steak, or as one politician would say ’Where’s the beef’. What ever happened to the CAFÉ increase, oh sorry the Democratic committee chairman is from Michigan and he gets his marching orders from the UAW and GM. Go back and read the name of the bill. Anything with that much apple pie and motherhood in the title is trying to obfuscate the fact that the politicians either do not have the answers to the problem or the testicular fortitude to tell the public the truth, educate them on the solution.
Posted by: Bbby G | Aug 5, 2007 3:05:45 PM
What a farce this bill is. Read the highlights, research this, study that, report progress etc. Sell the sizzle not the steak, or as one politician would say ’Where’s the beef’. What ever happened to the CAFÉ increase, oh sorry the Democratic committee chairman is from Michigan and he gets his marching orders from the UAW and GM. Go back and read the name of the bill. Anything with that much apple pie and motherhood in the title is trying to obfuscate the fact that the politicians either do not have the answers to the problem or the testicular fortitude to tell the public the truth, educate them on the solution.
Posted by: Bbby G | Aug 5, 2007 3:08:05 PM
Wait for it, wait for it!!! Not going to happen. It would really be refreshing for someone to actually have read our NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY or the 2005 Energy Bill.
Of course Bush listens to Big Oil and Big Electric, they are important part of out economy. Bush has also pushed renewable energy harder and more successfully than any of his predecessors. So Bush has already done most of he set out to do on energy. There is is no reason to for a new bill.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 5, 2007 3:26:41 PM
What a farce this bill is.
"WASHINGTON, July 30 — A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees."
Posted by: DS | Aug 5, 2007 5:47:23 PM
Of course Bush listens to Big Oil and Big Electric, they are important part of out economy. Bush has also pushed renewable energy harder and more successfully than any of his predecessors. So Bush has already done most of he set out to do on energy. There is is no reason to for a new bill.
Load-a-crap.
Posted by: jack | Aug 5, 2007 5:52:45 PM
“The New Direction for Energy Independence ... Act.”
Yea when you're going around in circles, you're going in a new direction every few degrees.
If they'd read greencarcongress, they'd already know most everything they've resolved to undertake to learn. But that misses the point. We need to keep the merry-go-round going. That's the "engine" of the American economy, you see.
Posted by: P Schager | Aug 5, 2007 7:05:25 PM
More NYTs bias reporting which is sometimes called lying but at a minimum unethical reporting. The loan guarantee is if the government changes regulations in the middle of building a nuke plant.
What is more interesting, with all the space devoted to the billions of dollars of loan guarantees,; the NYTs could not find the space to actually quote the sentence. What is the NYTs afraid, readers coming to a different conclusion with all the facts.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 5, 2007 8:17:14 PM
Kit translated:
"Go nukes! Go coal! Go Big Oil!"
Posted by: jack | Aug 5, 2007 8:23:19 PM
What is wrong with nuclear power? I does not matter though this bill is not likely to pass, with how it treats Big Oil.
Posted by: | Aug 6, 2007 5:39:25 AM
If this thing kickstarts nuclear power again in this country, I'm all for it.
Posted by: Matthew | Aug 6, 2007 6:01:47 AM
Jack's back and like the NYTs he leaves out information to support a narrow agenda. Jack left out go renewable energy. Just change 'anti' to 'and' with a resulting in comprehensive and diverse energy policy.
I am against something. The endless lists that the anti's makeup to explain why something will not work totally ignoring that it is working. The 2005 Energy Bill is working.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 6, 2007 6:03:38 AM
What I would like to see in any energy bill, is a provision to tax fossil fuel carbon.
Recently there has been a decrease in American demand for unnecessarily big vehicles (unnecessary that is, for those who don't really need the size and hauling capacity) pickup trucks and SUV's. Why? Because of fuel price increases owing to natural economic forces, i.e. refinery problems or problems in places like Nigeria.
I believe therefore that if the price of gasoline drops precipitously, we need to kick in a tax on gas to make it artificially more expensive, i.e. $3.00 or more a gallon. I cannot emphasize enough that we need such a tax to incentivize people to buy more fuel-economical cars, or drive less.
If however it should ever be determined that global warming is a figment of the imaginations of those who dislike the automobile for other reasons (i.e., Freudian hangups of one kind or another), I'll re-evaluate my position.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | Aug 6, 2007 7:28:19 AM
I am against something. The endless lists that the anti's makeup to explain why something will not work totally ignoring that it is working. The 2005 Energy Bill is working.
Straight from Rove's mouth.
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 8:08:15 AM
So Alex, you want to tax something old people and children need because you have some theory that sea level might increase a few mm in a hundred years? How about we pass a law that says Alex can not have a hot water heater in his house? Cheap fix too, at least a 15% reduction in energy use. Put me in charge of the energy police and I will find lots of things that Alex enjoys but does not really need.
Clearly there are lots of better ways of reducing ghg than increasing taxes on the poor.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 6, 2007 9:10:18 AM
Kit P, from your dismissive comments it seems you don't weigh global warming very significantly. This then would explain your view of the current energy policy as "working" and why you encounter so much disagreement here at GCG. Is your intention just to stir things up or what? The only thing "working" it seems to me is high oil prices. It all depends on your goals and your goals are obviously different to most people's here. If you want to debate global warming go over to realclimate.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 6, 2007 9:59:10 AM
Jack:
Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults and mindless political spew? If you don't agree with Kit, give an intelligent counter-argument. Please don't bore us with ad-hominem attacks.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 6, 2007 10:00:35 AM
The energy bill may be working, but working towards what? Lemmings off a cliff? As we realize too late that we don't have enough supplies of dino fuel?
It's called planning ahead. Something our current energy policy prefers to ignore. It's MUCH more profitable for the energy and oil companies to respond to an energy "crises" than it is to plan energy security in advance.
Posted by: darwin | Aug 6, 2007 10:14:51 AM
Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults and mindless political spew?
Clearly the irony of that comment is lost on you.
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 10:50:49 AM
"The problem that I see is that people are accepting anthropogenic global warming as fact, and are rushing to give government more power to control commerce, industry, and personal behavior to stop this "problem". It is far easier to give power away than to take it back, thus this could cause a grave problem in and of itself.
To those of you that are snippy with me,sorry. I say that expecting consistent and dependable empirical evidence does not make me a partisan, it makes me a scientist."
Aha. One of those.
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 10:55:42 AM
Yes, the veto will come, as the powerful Lobbyists have Bush in their pocket. Meanwhile the poor,elderly, children will take the hits; as they have no voice in present day politics.
Politicians have been bought by money,jobs,gifts. This is the end of our demoracy. Ever since the banks took control and fiat money came into play and We went off the gold standard.
The big deals in corporate America to sqeeze a company of a millions for the few and the rest of America can go to hell, along with any living they had!
Welcome to the next third world called America.
The fire sale has begun..........
Posted by: Jon | Aug 6, 2007 11:09:39 AM
Jack:
Cogent argument-
"The problem that I see is that people are accepting anthropogenic global warming as fact, and are rushing to give government more power to control commerce, industry, and personal behavior to stop this "problem". It is far easier to give power away than to take it back, thus this could cause a grave problem in and of itself."
Non-cogent argument-
"Straight from Rove's mouth"
"Clearly the irony of that comment is lost on you."
Clearly. Please, explain it to me.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 6, 2007 11:36:40 AM
The end is nigh. There's naught we can do but build bomb shelters in our back yards and horde canned goods.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 6, 2007 11:39:06 AM
Bob:
Hoarding canned goods? So,uh, what'll you give me for a case of spinach? I'll throw in a camo outfit and a Ted Nugent LP if the deal's sweet enough.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 6, 2007 11:49:25 AM
Hoarding canned goods? So,uh, what'll you give me for a case of spinach? I'll throw in a camo outfit and a Ted Nugent LP if the deal's sweet enough.
So much for cogent arguments.
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 11:50:57 AM
Jack,
It's humor. I'm sure someone would be willing to explain the joke if you don't get it.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 6, 2007 11:59:10 AM
tthoms, I'll give you my prized collection of every single episode of "Out There TV." I'll even throw in "Loose Change second edition"(all on VHS of course. I won't get close to a DVD player as I've heard the neocons use them form mind control and such.)
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 6, 2007 12:00:49 PM
Tthoms, I wouldn't bother with Jack - go back and read the last several discussions in which he participated, and you'll see he's just here to pick fights with anyone who doesn't think just like him.
Posted by: MatthewMatthew | Aug 6, 2007 12:05:44 PM
I'm sure someone would be willing to explain the joke if you don't get it.
cf.
"Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults?"
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 12:07:41 PM
I wouldn't bother with Jack - go back and read the last several discussions in which he participated, and you'll see he's just here to pick fights with anyone who doesn't think just like him.
cf.
"Do you have anything useful to say besides personal insults?"
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 12:08:44 PM
On a more serious note, as for the whole global warming issue, in the context of this article, I don't see why it really matters whether you believe in it or not. Those of us who are worried about global warming want to reduce CO2 emissions, which means greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, or centralizing their use in facilities where the CO2 can be sequestered (i.e. power plants) Most people who don't think that CO2 emissions are an issue probably still at least realize that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels and furthermore, that many of the people we are enriching through our wasteful use of petroleum are not spending those petrodollars in ways that align with our best interests as citizens of the "developed" world. I don't see what the bickering is about. The underlying reasons may differ, however, most of us here seem to want the same thing: reduced dependence on fossil fuels, especially non-domestic petroleum. In my view at least, this bill seems to be another step in that direction. Hopefully Bush won't veto it, and if he does, hopefully congress will be able to override the veto, or hopefully a compromise can be reached which doesn't gut the bill of the measures which could help promote clean renewables and energy diversification, especially in the transport sector which needs it the most.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 6, 2007 12:21:00 PM
Bbby G-I agree--we need to encourage private companies to bring about alternative energy and eliminate petro consumption asap. Bush did not get a strong follow-thru with both Dem/Rep.. Partisanship is screwing up the country and the war on terror.Mandates coming out of our government is a farce. Incentives for the best alternative energies would best get government out this new revolution.
Posted by: Devarity | Aug 6, 2007 1:05:30 PM
The science and engineering of reducing ghg is relatively straight forward. There is no evidence that this congress has a clue. Or Marcus for that matter if he thinks 'only thing "working" it seems to me is high oil prices.'
While AGW and an adequate energy supply is closely related subject. Other people doing without seems to be the only only solution that Jack and Marcus understand. The problem with this I see as an engineer, is that I can not convince Jack and Marcus to do without. Jack and Marcus want me to invent some pixie dust someday solution.
So if you look at the science, the Bush administration has a very effective program for reducing AGW too. No I did not hear it from Rove. Countless hours reading various reports and studies.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 6, 2007 5:08:49 PM
It would be great if this site supported an "ingore" list that would allow us to filter out certain people ... like jack.
Posted by: | Aug 6, 2007 6:09:39 PM
And Kit P.
These other nicks are new to me, but Kit P has a history of trolling at The Energy Blog. He is totally shameless. You can catch him in a direct falsehood, throw it in his face several times, and he shifts to some other lie or half-truth without a pause (thread where he did this).
He's got no interest in truth or science, just his position. He may be an ideologue, or he may be paid to troll and disrupt sites which dare to oppose the interests of his paymasters. Either way, Karl Rove couldn't ask for a better disciple.
We should watch the rest to see if they fit any similar patterns.
Posted by: Reality Czech | Aug 6, 2007 7:52:39 PM
So, Kit P troll, tell us just how effective the Bush anti-AGW program has been. We already know that it has no carbon caps and doesn't make emitters pay any more money, so there is no business advantage to be gained from cutting emissions. How did this miracle occur?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 6, 2007 9:42:18 PM
The Dumbocrats have only mandated that 15% of our energy come from renewables, in only ten years. They also decreed Hydro has been condemned to be somehow no longer a renewable energy source. To conform to these Jackasses, we will have to use Solar an dWind. To meetthe mandate we shall have to condemn some portion of the country be paved over, every square inch, with solar cells.
Ssince it is only 15% and not 100%, we don't need a area as large as Texas, The States of New York and Massachusetts together wil provide just about the requisite square mileage needed. They will do fine.
Everybody in those States... Get up. Get out! And move! Tear down every house, chop down every tree, and and kill every blssed thing in the two States and start to to pave them with solar cells. Time ios wasting. The waste heat will turn them into Sahara deserts quickly enough and likely fry every thing we don't kill directly. It will alter the local climate of the neighboring ten or twenty states, but too bad. The Jacksasses have spoken. Its the LAW!
Dumbocrat lawyer-legisilators never took a Science course in their lives; can't count anything beyond the rustle and clink of bribes and payoffs. They will just deny they ever voted for such an outcome as the alwasy do. The will say and it was a conspiracy of the sand makers. Solar cells are made of sand.
So greedy, evil, grasping, BIG SAND did it! Another rotten, capitalistic business.
Thank heavens the enviros will step in and sue. How many species would be destroyed to kill ever blessed living organism in New York and Massachusetts to meet this preposterous assinine mandate?
They wouldn't care what to do with the humans who they believe are just a dreg on the environment,anyway. Nonetheless, I don't think the Eenvironmetal Impact Statement will approve all the dead rats and cockroaches froms just NYC, alone.
The Energy Act of 2005 at least is solving some of our needs. This joke certainly won't...
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Aug 6, 2007 10:22:05 PM
Are you drunk?
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 10:25:06 PM
Quote: "It would be great if this site supported an "ingore" list that would allow us to filter out certain people ... like jack."
No, jack is quick (with his humor)
jack is nimble (with his words)
jack really makes them stick. (his arguments)
Oh, now I get it, that's why he uses "jack."
IMHO, anyway. I enjoyed the discussion. Peace :-)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 7, 2007 12:18:31 AM
You all have no ideas. You just do not realize that you are standing on an unlimited source of clean non-polluteing energy. It is called the EARTH.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY. WISE UP
Posted by: jeff | Aug 7, 2007 4:34:14 AM
I believe we're currently passing through a warming cycle. I think the cause is increased solar disruption, as in the past.
I agree that we must eliminate our dependence on foreign oil for all the obvious reasons. We should work to eliminate oil as a source to produce heat, power generation and transportation.
Seriously sequestering CO2 is a waste of resources more productively used elsewhere. That's not to say it shouldn't be done to improve air quality where a serious problem exists.
The development of clean coal usage must also be part of the equation.
The science to accomplish all this has to fence out the politicians and self servers, especially among the "scientists", who have nothing to add but dissension and confusion.
How can a scientist say "the science is settled"?
Posted by: Genecis | Aug 7, 2007 5:21:37 AM
Hydro has limited growth potential. Perhaps a reason it is not included in the bill as a growth resource?
Posted by: Eric S | Aug 7, 2007 5:32:30 AM
Drunk or trolling (maybe another paid troll). It's a tossup.
The impervious surface area of the USA is over 110,000 square km. That's area which is already covered with roofs or pavement. If this area receives the mid-Kansas average of 1550 kWh/m^2/yr and you put 15%-efficient PV over it, the total electric production would be:
1.1e11 m^2 * 1.55e3 kWh/m^2/yr * 0.15 = 2.56e13 kWh/yr
= 25,600 billion kWh/yr.
Total US electric generation is a bit over 4000 billion kWh/year. Total US energy consumption for all purposes was about 100 quads, or 29,000 billion kWh (which includes losses in conversion). In short, the sunlight falling on our roofs and pavements is sufficient to run the whole country.
(Gotta love these "teachable moments" that the trolls create.)
Jeff: Average heat flux out of the Earth is on the order of 60 milliwatts per square meter. Save for a few volcanic areas where this heat is replenished quickly, geothermal energy just mines fossil heat. The rocks will cool and the resource will eventually deplete.
And Genecis is another troll, reciting some of the same talking points. I think GCC has become a target for organized disruption.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 7, 2007 5:58:13 AM
Ok Engineer-Poet...
I know you did not ask for this, but I - as an Ohio Citizen, willingly sacrifice my state for the greater good of the union. As Ohio is equal in surface area to the remainder of the nation's impervious surface - it makes perfect sense. It would be along the same parallel as Kansas, it is just East of the population center of the country (though I suspect it is closer to center for the 'energy consumption center' of the US - got to think of transmission losses!). And it would be just one large construction site - putting Americans back to work making America better (I sound like a politician).
Ohio doesn't really have that much beauty. Sure a few farms here and there, a couple of parks - the Ohio river would probably benefit from the lack of pollutant run-off - maybe it would be a bit clearer instead of grayish-green. There are a few mentionable landmarks - but they could be located to Indiana - there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to go there for - so a big 'Ohio Memorial Park' would add a lot of tourist income to the state.
As for relocating citizens - no problem. We will just finsih the migration that started 40 years ago to Florida, California, Georgia, and New York. I personally will move to Oregon.
So - sounds like we have a pretty sound plan to solve America's current - oh shoot... that's right. This will solve our current needs - what about the increasing demand for energy over the next 30 years.
I am open for ideas??
Maybe Nuclear plants all over South Dakota (who lives there anyway?)
Posted by: Eric S | Aug 7, 2007 6:30:40 AM
Well, now that everyone realizes the dangers of solar (apparently it will inevitably kill every living thing in New York and Massachusetts) I'm just waiting to hear why the use of wind, waves, and waste biomass as energy sources pose grave dangers to life as we know it. I suspect that Iceland is on the brink of becoming uninhabitable because of their reckless exploitation of geothermal.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 7, 2007 6:36:56 AM
"I think GCC has become a target for organized disruption."
Normally I'd dismiss such thoughts with a smile and a shake of the head, but I have noticed an increase in the number of posts with no constructive content or intent.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 7, 2007 6:42:16 AM
"Normally I'd dismiss such thoughts with a smile and a shake of the head, but I have noticed an increase in the number of posts with no constructive content or intent."
cf.
"So far all I've heard from you is negativity, cheap talk and paranoia."
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 6:52:23 AM
jack: What is the answer to our energy, pollution and transportation problems?
Posted by: Neil | Aug 7, 2007 7:36:08 AM
jack: What is the answer to our energy, pollution and transportation problems?
Simple minds demand simple answers.
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 7:38:42 AM
I'm not expecting a simple answer. Take as much space as you require. Feel free to concentrate on any one problem. Since I'm guessing you're American, how about US oil dependence?
Posted by: Neil | Aug 7, 2007 7:53:20 AM
I'm not expecting a simple answer.
Of course you are. Your question indicates as much.
Take as much space as you require. Feel free to concentrate on any one problem.
OK, perfesser.
Since I'm guessing you're American, how about US oil dependence?
See my previous response.
Clearly you are wedded to EVs as some sort of "grand answer", so I'm not going to waste my time explaining things to you or exploring anything in depth. My experience with you on other threads indicates that whenever something is explored with even a modicum of depth (eg, looking behind the curtains a bit to see what's really going on with the X Prize), your only response is a dismissive set of insults.
There are a good number of people here who understand that there are no simple answers, no magic pills, yet you don't appear to be one of those people.
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 8:03:12 AM
I'd be very surprised if jack can get beyond the handful of denialist talking points he's parroted so far. I'll also bet that he fails to acknowledge when those talking points are shown to be false.
Posted by: Reality Czech | Aug 7, 2007 8:06:32 AM
I'm not going to waste my time explaining things to you or exploring anything in depth.He stopped short of asserting anything at all, so nobody can show him to be a liar. Why didn't I see that coming?
Posted by: Reality Czech | Aug 7, 2007 8:13:28 AM
I rest my case.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 7, 2007 8:14:49 AM
I rest my case.
What "case" would that be, Neil? That you are a mindless cheerleader for Team EV who dismisses anything that threatens the team? Yeah, that case was rested quite a while ago.
Good luck searching for simple answers.
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 8:18:01 AM
Newsweek article on the climate-change denial machine. The agenda of the API will look very familiar to anyone who's been watching the trolls in this thread.
Posted by: Reality Czech | Aug 7, 2007 8:22:37 AM
And jack's position is that Neil isn't worthy to receive the truth. He won't even post it for those who might be reading without comment; if you don't believe, there is no point.
If you wanted proof that the sum total of right-wing denial is a religious position, there you have it!
Posted by: Reality Czech | Aug 7, 2007 8:26:31 AM
The agenda of the API will look very familiar to anyone who's been watching the trolls in this thread.
I see - so I question whether the X Prize is a fair contest, based on the interrelationships between the leadership of the X Prize and that of Tesla, as well as the contest metrics being tailor-made to match the capabilities and claims of the Tesla; and I then comment on this thread that this House bill will get vetoed because Bush will never let extra government welfare for the oil and gas industry get reduced, and this then makes me an employee of the AEI?
Nice troll hunting there, sport. Let me know when it makes sense.
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 8:27:18 AM
If you wanted proof that the sum total of right-wing denial is a religious position, there you have it!
OK, so since I consider Neil a simple-minded cheerleader for a specific technology, that makes me a global warming denialist? And when I openly call out the denialists on this thread as being Rovian mouthpieces, this somehow makes me part of their little world?
You need to cut down on the coffee and learn how to concentrate, pal. Your skillz are sorely lacking.
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 8:30:16 AM
Can anyone locate the text of the Udall amendment?
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 8:56:01 AM
Neil: What is the answer to our energy, pollution and transportation problems?
I'm not expecting a simple answer. Take as much space as you require. Feel free to concentrate on any one problem. Since I'm guessing you're American, how about US oil dependence?
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 9:35:31 AM
So Eric, is the science settled?
Posted by: Genecis | Aug 7, 2007 2:28:47 PM
The answer to our impending energy and global warming problems lies beyond technology.
To give the first clue, just look at the problem the US gov. is having in passing sufficient legislation to address the obvious impending energy and climate-chage problems, and some of the absurd perceptions that is being posted here.
For the second clue, look at the tens of thousands of years that human have roamed the earth. We have been able to thrive just fine without using a drop of oil, and very little coal, and without any of the fancy solar and nanotechnology nor nuclear tech that we are having today. Wind energy was use merely for pumping water off the ground, or for milling grains. Oil has been known for but over 100 years. Humanity have thrived very well relying entirely on RENEWABLE ENERGY like BIOMASS and solar heat! We have done it before, we will be able to do it again...unless it'll be too late after we will have poisoned the earth enough?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 7, 2007 4:26:15 PM
Gentle folk: I thought Jack’s remark about the virtue of transport electrification as a means of making wholesale carbon sequestration practical was right on the money. It’s interesting because it points out some of the most promising work being done.
Problem: Common plant crops such as corn or sugarcane produce such a low volume of fuel and require such extensive energy and petrochemical inputs per acre that it is scarcely worth doing –it’s only better than importing oil from the Mideast. Regardless of whether it’s carbohydrate or cellulosic, the yield is not much more than 100 gallons of fuel per acre per year. There aren’t close to enough arable acres out there to get the job done. To meet our needs for fuel using renewable resources, it’ll take a much faster growing plant for feedstock to get yields worth investing in.
Enter algae. It doubles in volume every 4 hours under ideal conditions producing yields closer to 10,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year. This is where the power plant comes in – “feeding” CO2 emissions to algae in a bioreactor is an efficient way to capture it. There are a number of projects working on making this practical. When we figure out how to manage the harvesting part of the process it will be possible to run large scale power production in a closed loop – the plant will burn biodiesel produced from it’s exhaust. Oil depletion, imports, and carbon emissions for those plants go to zero and fuel costs go through the floor. I’m not certain about where folks with “control” issues are coming from, but this looks like a win/win/win proposition to me.
Besides, how much control does it take to get someone to consider buying an fully electric car that goes 0-60 in < 10 seconds, cruises at 90mph with the A/C or heater running whose motor has one moving part and batteries that last 250 miles on a charge and outlast the car. It has no lead-acid battery, transmission, cooling system, lubrication system, or exhaust system to replenish or repair and a fraction of the break wear. That would be the 5 passenger Phoenix SUV going on sale later this year in California. Recharging the batteries to go 250 miles costs $7.00 and if gas stations install chargers, they’ll recharge in less than 10 minutes without heating up. In case you’re concerned, we could replace 80% of the US auto fleet with plug-in hybrids that recharge overnight without having to expand base generation or transmission infrastructure.
It sure seems like a plan to me but this energy bill will only study it. I wonder what they think is left for us to learn.
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 7, 2007 4:54:48 PM
I question whether the X Prize is a fair contestYou attach far too much importance to the X prize, jack.
You're going on about trivia while refusing to say anything substantial. Why don't you contribute a bit more here?
since I consider Neil a simple-minded cheerleader for a specific technology, that makes me a global warming denialist?I'm a "cheerleader" for electric propulsion (if you want to call me that), but the position behind it is anything but simple-minded. The fact is that the end-to-end efficiency of electric beats hydrogen fuel cells by a factor of three, and everything else by twice that or better. The PHEV can be a 50% solution today, an 80% solution tomorrow, and advance incrementally to become the 100% solution as the need for the "PH" fades away.
If you think it's simple-minded, look at the numbers. If you have any corrections to offer to my 3-year-old figures, let's have 'em.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 7, 2007 6:00:25 PM
The energy bill contains a PHEV tax credit, which I don't see any mention of on the site (sorry if I missed it somewhere). You can read some details re: this credit at this blog
Posted by: Steve | Aug 7, 2007 6:42:55 PM
The energy bill contains a PHEV tax credit, which I don't see any mention of on the site (sorry if I missed it somewhere). You can read some details re: this credit at this blog
Posted by: Steve | Aug 7, 2007 6:44:25 PM
Jeff,
You've just forgot to mention the cost of hundreds of millions of battery packs, and how are we going to get the raw materials to produce all those packs.
Burning diesel fuel is polluting.
How about gasifying the oil to produce H2 and burn the H2 instead in the gas turbine at the power plants? Recapture the CO2 made during the gasification process to grow more algae.
And since we are gonna have problems obtaining enough battery packs, cost-wise or raw material wise, why not just fill up the cars with H2 to produce power on location, bypassing all that transmission losses thru the grid and charging loss and battery loss, etc? H2-ICE-HEV capable of ~55mpg will be just as efficient source-to-wheel as BEV. H2 storage inside the car will cost $2000 USD for 144kwh of heat energy, or ~92 kwh of battery-equivalent energy when factoring in the higher efficiency of BEV at 70% battery to wheel vs. H2-ICE-HEV's efficiency at ~45% tank to wheel, or ~120kwh for a hybrid FCV at ~60% efficiency tank to wheel. How long will it take to bring down the price of a 92 kwh-120kwh battery pack to $2000 USD? Disperse these H2-producing power plants widely, and one will have solve the H2-infrastructure problem with minimum cost.
Honda is making a home NG reformation unit so that you can fill up your H2-vehicle at home. Expect this will be released when Honda release their ultra sexy next-gen FCX (hybrid FCV) next year.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 7, 2007 7:26:01 PM
How about gasifying the oil to produce H2 and burn the H2 instead in the gas turbine at the power plants?
- Not renewable.
- Continues dependence upon oil.
Recapture the CO2 made during the gasification process to grow more algae.Unless algal oil is the exclusive fuel for the gas turbine, this system still involves carbon emissions.
And since we are gonna have problems obtaining enough battery packsYou think there will be no problems obtaining enough fuel-cell stacks? They were a half-million dollars apiece recently, and still require platinum-group metals which dissolve and are lost from the electrodes. Where can we get enough platinum?
why not just fill up the cars with H2Your feedstock for hydrogen is a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are depleting. Where can we get enough hydrogen?
Posted by: Reality Czech | Aug 7, 2007 7:40:34 PM
Thought so.
Posted by: jack | Aug 7, 2007 7:54:18 PM
Reality Czech,
We can get the H2 plus much more from massive tidal generated power plants, similar to the one currently in the planning stage off Scotland.
Posted by: Genecis | Aug 8, 2007 7:49:05 AM
Like E-P I am a "cheerleader" for PHEV. The reason is because I work in the electricity generating industry building and operating power plants.
However as an engineer I know PHEV are MIA and EV are DOA. E-P and Reality Czech go nuts whenever I suggest that EV are not practical and would not reduce AGW in the US.
Nuclear power (or fusion or solar) will never produce electricity too cheap to meter. Who made that often repeated claim anyhow? Claims that PHEV are part of the solution include the caveat that huge hurdles must be over come and very few technologies overcome those hurdles. Wishful thinking and pixie dust does not solve problems.
Likewise, no responsible group suggests that 'other' renewable energy technologies will be a significant part of the energy mix and therefore part of the solution.
I am advocate for as many solutions as we can find, even small ones. How is the US going to meet energy demand and reduce ghg emissions? It is not possible, facts are facts. Since AGW is a global issue, the biggest solution is to help China and India use coal as efficiently as the US and Japan. Bush is doing that along with promoting providing nuclear technology. This is also creating high paying jobs.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 8, 2007 8:30:16 AM
PHEV MIA and EV DOA? More like, just not born yet (after a few miscarriages). Me thinks you exaggerate the remaining hurdles to both. AFAIK the only remaining hurdle is the cost of the batteries. If you can cut the cost of something like the Altair battery in half, the world changes.
Posted by: John | Aug 8, 2007 9:23:13 AM
I rest my case.
Posted by: jack | Aug 8, 2007 1:32:26 PM
Reality CZec,
I meant use Algae oil, or waste biomass, not petroleum, to gasify into Hydrogen.
When you gasify the algae oil, you can capture the CO2 to use to grow more algae. Aside from some leakage of CO2 in the system, this is more like a closed system in which the carbon is continously recycled and not released into the atmosphere in any appreciable amount.
Problem making fuel cell stacks? Tell that to GM and Honda. H2-ICE-HEV will do just fine for now until we can find a cheaper catalyst than platinum for PEM FC.
"Your feedstock for hydrogen is a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are depleting. Where can we get enough hydrogen?"
Did I ever say that "my feedstock for H2 is fossil fuel?" NO NO NO. Use Algae oil, use solar and wind electricity via high-temp electrolysis, use waste biomass etc..All these are carbon-neutral. To get enough Hydrogen, we'll need to start building up facilities for H2 production, that's all. When you combine a power plant with a H2 production facility, your energy efficiency goes way up and your expenses and energy use go way down.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 8, 2007 1:47:19 PM
Just give the battery a chance to get in the game. The only
way to capitalize this is to get the new emerging markets
to adopt our energy dependance and its off to the races with
$100.00 + barrel of oil. This will bring in any alternative
that will allow consumers acess to some sort of price stability.
This will set the stage for PHEV and BEV vehicles to get broad
market appeal. It is only a matter of time before our oil gluttony
will come back to remind us how we painted ourselves
into a corner. Clearly 2008 will be a telling moment in the
history of energy financial markets. It is time to get honest
and get with some form of renewable power source whatever it is.
Posted by: William | Aug 8, 2007 10:10:42 PM
The Kit P troll writes:
Nuclear power (or fusion or solar) will never produce electricity too cheap to meter. Who made that often repeated claim anyhow?Don't you know? If you were really in the power industry, you would. It wasn't a claim, it was a blue-sky speculation elicited by a question from a science writer. Of course, it got twisted out of recognition by the enemies of nuclear power.
Kind of like what you do, only more artful.
However as an engineer I know PHEV are MIA and EV are DOA.And everyone wants to know how you can maintain those claims when Toyota is introducing a PHEV, even Chevy is showing seriousness and Tesla Motors' 2008 order book is already 70% full.
E-P and Reality Czech go nuts whenever I suggest that EV are not practical and would not reduce AGW in the US.I showed you cost calculations for running an EV on wind and solar. Of course, you won't acknowledge that; it would interfere with your propaganda efforts.
Claims that PHEV are part of the solution include the caveat that huge hurdles must be over come and very few technologies overcome those hurdles. Wishful thinking and pixie dust does not solve problems.And your solution is to drill for oil that no longer exists. We're either post-peak (May 2005 was peak crude plus condensate) or very close, and no amount of wishful thinking will feed all the monster SUVs.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 8, 2007 11:34:03 PM
E-P, as I keep explaining (over and over and over), the motivation does not exist yet for PHEV to be accepted by the general public. When I am told the sky is falling, of course I look around. Not only is the sky not falling, but E-P thinks charging batteries is a good solution.
Coal to liquids, biofuels, and nuclear generated hydrogen feeding a FT process will keep those clean and efficient ICE humming away for 100 years after I turn to dust.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 9, 2007 8:13:47 PM
E-P, as I keep explaining (over and over and over), the motivation does not exist yet for PHEV to be accepted by the general public.Nice hedge, "yet". Care to comment on the likelihood that one or more of
- Rising oil prices
- Carbon taxes or caps
- Advantageous congestion charges or lane allocations
- Changing social mores
Coal to liquids, biofuels, and nuclear generated hydrogen feeding a FT process will keep those clean and efficient ICE humming away for 100 years after I turn to dust.Now I know you're not an engineer, because engineers check their figures and anyone who checked his figures would know that
- The world is going to run out of coal, especially if it is used to replace oil.
- Biofuels don't have enough carbon in the biomass to replace oil.
- Hydrogen-to-biofuels takes several times the energy of pure electric (and disproportionately greater capital expense).
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 9, 2007 9:16:11 PM
Eng-Poet is right, we soon won't have enough fossil fuels to keep feeding our inefficient ICE the way it is now. CTL via F-T is too costly and inefficient.
Parallel to PHEV and BEV developments, another solution is to synthesize H2, NH3, or CH4 using solar and wind energy, and use these synthetic fuels as sparingly as possible in our future most-efficient ICE-HEV (next gen Prius is rumored to be capable of 70 mpg,) which is on par with any BEV from primary source-to-wheel energy calculation.
Still, people should use more public transportation and carpooling as much as possible. No amount of technology will satisfy wasteful behaviors.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 9, 2007 10:53:02 PM
Reality Czech,
Re: The Newsweek article:
"[...]
Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, also slammed the Newsweek cover story, as NewsMax.com reported last week.
Following the publication of Samuelson’s piece, he noted:
"Newsweek’s management must have realized that their global warming ‘denial’ cover story was so woeful that they were forced to run a complete rebuttal in the very next issue from one of their very own editors ... This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism.”
Morano said a Senate report is scheduled to be released in the fall that will feature hundreds of scientists "who have spoken out recently against [Al] Gore, the U.N., and the media-driven climate ‘consensus.’”
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved
Posted by: Genecis | Aug 13, 2007 2:36:54 PM
NewsMax?? LOL.
Posted by: jack | Aug 13, 2007 3:51:49 PM
For all of those followers of the church of Global Warming who are pushing for draconian government standards that decrease our personal liberties the important question is when are you going to allow us to implement the solution to global warming: NexGen Nuclear power! 90% of all our pollution comes from coal burning power plants. You are barking up the wrong tree by trying to derail bio-fuels,BTL and CTL. The transportation sector is only 28% of our total energy consumption and is not powered by coal burning power plants. No wonder the democrat congress is at 11% approval ratings. This is the third so called "energy bill" from the dems and none contain any new energy.
I guess only the republicans are capable of solving our biggest problem which is: dependence on islamic terror oil! And it looks like only the rublicans are capable of reducing pollution 95% by embracing NexGen Nuke power and fully implementing BTL,CTL and all Bio-Fuels.
I was hoping this would be a bi-partisian issue but it looks like the democrats started opposing energy independence after Bush's energy independence solutions state of the union address.
Posted by: Samthed | Oct 14, 2007 4:34:05 PM
