 | Can New York Replicate Water Success with Energy | The Oil Drum: Local | Wanted: Visionary Leader for NYC DOT |  |
The State of the (Energy) Union (and a SOTU open thread)
Posted by Glenn on January 23, 2007 - 8:30pm in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: carbon emissions, climate change, global warming [list all tags]
UPDATE by Prof. Goose
Tonight President Bush will ask Congress to join him in pursuing the goal of reducing US gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years (and petroleum consumption by 10% by 2017--thanks Chris V.). Here is a .pdf (125Kb) of the press release and "the plan."
We don't yet know what President Bush will say specifically in the SOTU speech about environmental issues, climate change or our nation's addiction to oil. However, by tomorrow he may be playing catch up to an array of local, state and private sector efforts to reduce green house gas emissions. Here in New York City and around the country local municipalities are making real commitments to reducing carbon emissions. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is trying to reduce the carbon emissions from tailpipes with an ambitious approach to capping carbon emissions and reducing them to 1990 levels by 2020.
And now a group of large corporations looking to reduce their exposure to all these new and varied state and city level legislation have banded together to call for a national limit to carbon emissions set at the Federal level.
Many energy producers and manufacturers have expressed concern that various state efforts, if not coordinated, could lead to a scattershot system of regulation. Others worry that harsher measures, like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, the biggest contributor to global-warming gases, could be imposed if they do not reach a consensus on a legislative approach.
The group’s formal announcement is scheduled for Monday, the day before President Bush is to deliver his State of the Union address and offer the administration’s newest basket of proposals to promote energy security and combat global warming.
While they didn't figure out a model piece of legislation that they could all agree on, they did agree to some basic principles to encourage more market based carbon credit system.
The group’s principles include recommending a range of emissions levels — from 100 to 105 percent of current levels within five years, then down to 90 to 100 percent of current levels in 10 years, and 70 to 90 percent of current levels in 15 years. In addition, the chief executives agreed after some discussion, to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide.
This would basically eliminate the idea of new coal plants without significant carbon sequestration technology in place.
Politically industry seems to sense a moment of opportunity following the Democrats rise to power in Congress and President Bush's last two years in office to solidify the regulatory framework they will operate within for the next generation.
Timing also played a role in the executives’ thinking. As Mr. Darbee said, “We have the opportunity to construct something more pragmatic and realistic while President Bush is in office.” A future political climate, after 2008, he said, might produce “solutions less sensitive to the needs of business.”
Hear that Hillary and Barack? McCain? Governor Richardson (an energy dude himself...)?
This could be President Bush's last chance to create a long lasting legacy on the environment. And the Democrats look like they are open to dealing on the carbon emissions to produce tangible progress on a major issue for their base. Will Bush deal? We shall see on Tuesday night.
UPDATE by Prof. Goose
Democrats Expect Bush Push on Ethanol by Bret Schulte
Word that President Bush will call for a massive increase in ethanol production as key to his strategy for energy security and the fight against global warming has Capitol Hill and industry lobbyists buzzing. Bush's goal, according to sources, will be 60 billion gallons of ethanol blended with U.S. gasoline and pumped into cars by 2030.
Dave Roberts provides his insightful and best guesses on the SOTU tonight here
In the end, it will be sound and fury signifying nothing. Promises of "energy independence" are nothing new, and they come to nothing. Thus shall it be with climate change. All the real action is happening at the state and local level, and it will be so until 2009. But Bush's increasingly desperate song and dance is always fun to hum along to.
and the Denver Post weighs in:
In his first State of the Union address to a Democratic-controlled Congress, President Bush will urge that gasoline consumption be slashed by 20 percent, the White House said, and press lawmakers not to resist his Iraq war buildup.
Remember when Bush ran in 2000, and said he was more of an environmentalist than Al Gore, because he would 'regulate the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere'?
Of course when he got to power, that became reducing the amount of CO2 per unit of GDP (that falls by about 1.5% pa in any case).
My continual sense with Bush is that whilst he changes his rhetoric to suit what the focus groups tell him, his political agenda remains unchanged.
The Baker Commission calls for a pull back in Iraq, and dealings with Iran and Syria. Bush toughens his rhetoric, and pours more troops in.
In his Energy Bill he called for more R&D to solve the energy problem, and then subsequent budgets have actually cut R&D below what was planned. For example the DOE's efficient vehicle programme has been cut back.
Where there are programmes which are ostensibly towards dealing with emissions, they are structured in a way so as to have payoff so far in the future that they are not likely to be valuable. That's why the 'FutureGen' project is known in the industry as 'NeverGen'.
Similarly the focus on hydrogen, a transport fuel which no reasonable analyst expects to have any significance before 2025 or later.
Call it pro fossil fuel, call it anti international institutions, call it pro highly paid taxpayers. Call it what you will, each policy measure has always looped back towards supporting the interests that have funded his political career (oil, pharmaceuticals etc.).
In that sense he is ideologically utterly consistent: perhaps a virtue, but not one that will lead to real policy change. He is, as he says, a man who knows his own mind, a decider.
So I expect rhetorical hot air, but not real change.
Or rather, require all new coal plants to have the provision to put carbon capture technology in place when that is available .
Since we don't know which coal capture technology will prove dominant (1), this could boil down to leaving an empty space next to the plant, designated for future carbon capture.
(1) leading candidates include:
IGCC - coal gasification
amine scrub of the exhaust flu
oxy-hydrogen combustion
My own guess is IGCC is the technological best lead. By concentrating the CO2 (a nearly pure stream from the gasification stage) you are making the capture so easy for yourself.
However the utility industry deeply distrusts IGCC due to reliability issues (new technology). This is a very conservative industry, with a low rate of R&D (1% of sales, v. 8% in the pharmaceutical industry).
Other than supercritical steam, there hasn't been a major innovation in coal fired technology since the 1960s that I know of (except aforesaid IGCC ie gasification, which is more of a chemical industry technology than a power utility one).
CO2 sequestration is an imaginary technology.
Even if you capture the CO2 effectively, there is currently no known reliable way of storing it for geophysical time, which is the requirement.
Not only that, any potential solution would depend intimately on local geology which may not
be compatible where the coal plants otherwise need to be.
Unfortunately, I see this as a total loser.
The mentions of 'sequestration' are a greenwashing of black coal, sort of like the "hydrogen car of the future" is a distraction to preclude having to increase efficiency standards now.
Let's compare this to a nuclear fission. If you write a cheque you will get a working plant with technology well-evolved through many decades, and you know that its operation will result in almost no greenhouse emissions versus coal.
The waste instead of being gaseous is small in volume and compact solid, and easily monitored.
And in future actinide-burning reactors that waste may be fuel of its own and be transmuted to a much lower half-life.
Mineral carbonation works forever.
I doubt fossil + CO2 capture will be price competitive with nuclear power though.
If it comes out slowly over a few thousand years it will be enough. Once we finsh burning the carbon in the coal and oil, makind's CO2 emmision will plumet.
1. you can certainly ship CO2 by pipeline over hundreds of miles it is already done. And you can move it by tanker.
2. you can certainly put CO2 back underground -- Weyburn in Saskatoon does so, as does Sleipnir in Norway (under the North Sea)
3. 'geologic' sequestration really means post 2200. After 2200, we don't have any more fossil fuels to burn (in significant quantities)-- just some biomass
4. building power plants at the mouths of coal plants, and moving the power very long distances is something we already do. Happens all the time in the UK. And we don't even us DC transmission to do it, which we could do.
So the questions of where to generate the power are not insuperable.
5. a bigger problem is safety, and more specifically, local concerns about safety. That disaster in Cameroon looms large.
Oddly, 5 is exactly the issue of the nuclear industry (fear of long term geologic waste).
My problem with nuclear is that, as a technology, it has never met its cost forecasts. Not by a country mile: 300-400% more expensive than forecast. Nor is its safety record entirely clean. It is a complex technology, and all the moving parts have to work, potentially for centuries, to keep it safe.
A lot of people have looked at CSS in great detail. There is real potential there, and the costs are not out of line with electricity provided by wind or nuclear (roughly a range of 5-10 cents/ kwhr for all of these technologies). And since coal is the cheapest energy we have, we are going to keep using coal.
There's no way, for example, that China could replace all its electricity demand with nuclear. So the challenge is to clean up the fuel it is using, coal.
Actually only IGCC is currently a serious candidate for carbon capture. Conventional CPPs emit a mixture of 18-19% CO2 and 75% N2 plus other stuff. To separate CO2 from this you need to liquify it - which will bring the costs to the sky and is even likely to be an energy loser.
If you are suggesting is to ban conventional CPPs and permit only IGCCs at sites suitable for carbon capture I would support you. But the fact it that you may as well ban the whole coal industry... it is pretty much the same.
Hello LevinK,
Now here is an excellent idea which I can affirm. We should ban the entire coal industry from the horrendous mines to the horrendous power plants to all of the horrendous electronic gadgets which are powered by the electricity generated by this dirty, world-polluting, world-destroying substance.
Americans should learn to live with less electricity. This will serve to break one of America's addictions as we retreat from the hellish planet that technology is creating through its pollution of the Earth.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Let's entertain this a bit.
What will happen if we just stopped burning coal and (obviously) nuclear starting from tommorow? I have lived during a permanent 3 to 1 rationing... not that bad, just quite inconvenient. But what about 1 to 3 or 1 to 11 (as they do in Baghdad and Tirana)? Forget cooling in the summers, how will people heat in the winters, since NG will be also gone? Tell you what - I think they will start burning wood... 300 mln.north americans by several cubic meters of wood = US deforestation in a decade or so. Is this what you want?
I told you once - our civilisation is just like a 1 mln.barrel tanker headed for an iceberg - and if your idea is to sink it then you need to know that all that cr*p is still going to get in the water. So, please stop wasting bandwidth with such suggestions and try to help those, trying to find a way to change the course - this is the only chance not only for humans but for the Mother Nature you are so much concerned of.
If the 300 million Americans cut down the forests they will murder their own children. If Americans were wise they would end the coal industry and then adapt to their environment.
Homo sapiens are headed to certain, inevitable extinction. Mother Nature has endured much greater global catastrophes in the past. Mother Nature will survive and prosper for another billion years after humankind is gone.
Too bad for humankind. Our species is quickly running out of time. Extinction is looming ahead.
Hi David,
**Too bad for humankind. Our species is quickly running out of time. Extinction is looming ahead.
Be careful David.
1)You can think yourself into depression and end up throwing yourself in front of a coal train (joke, OK).
2) Since you feel all is hopeless, almost everyone will ignore you.
Paul
Hello Paul,
I have an entire Universe and an entire planet and fifteen billion years to keep me happy in spite of the unfolding tragedy which is humankind. There is no cause for depression when the Universe is filled with so many beautiful things.
If I lied to you and you all listened to me that wouldn't exactly help the situation here on Earth that much, would it?
I will speak the truth and those who listen will hear.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Its like them religeous folks who go on about impending divine retribution. Doomsday cults are allways popular it seems, and we never run out of new sins to invent.
In the short run it is not possible.
In the long run, it is necessary and essential.
We move CO2 hundreds of miles, we move coal thousands of miles, we move electricity thousands of miles. The obstacles are not insuperable.
What we have to avoid now is 'locking in' an inappropriate technology.
Let's take a look at what Philip Verleger said just this Friday, in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal about biofuel use in the next 2-3 years.
"Last year was a tipping point in a lot of ways," says Philip Verleger Jr., an oil economist who heads PK Verleger LLC. "Biofuels will take bigger and bigger bites out of petroleum demand," Mr. Verleger said, noting climate-change and security concerns relating to the supply and use of petroleum. "Alternate fuels will take up all the growth, leaving petroleum demand static in the next two or three years."
I found the claim so surprising, even using say a very low 1.00% YOY demand growth in petroleum demand(which is lower than IEA) that I wrote to Verleger today to query whether he was properly quoted. Actually, I assumed he was properly quoted, but I wondered if the context had been correct.
He wrote back and said yes, he was properly quoted.
gregor
Opening statement tonight by POTUS in his SOTUS:
"The state of our
UnionDenial is strong."Not just a River In Egypt
It was the very last statement in the 2007 SOTUS.
Boy that Prezident of ours, he's a tricky little devil. Turned the turn tables on us.
what about water vapor and naturally occuring dust?
in terms of total particulate matter in the atmsophere - these natural sources make up over 80% of all emissions
Press reports say that the State of the Union speech is going to ask for 40 billion gallons of Biofuels (not only ethanol but also butanol, methanol, biodiesel ...). It may be doable over the next decade or two but clearly there are strong opinions on either side. However, the target will also be vulnerable to
(1) Oil companies refusal to share there distribution infrastructure (e.g. Chevron)
(2) predatory pricing by fossil fuel pumpers e.g. KSA, if substitution/conservation causes fossil derived prices to fall.
The Democrats should seize this opportunity to seal into code legislation to counter (1) and (2) above.
USA Strategic Petroleum Reserve Doubling - State of the Union Speech
The following article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR200701...
states that "President George W. Bush plans to call for a doubling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's capacity in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, the White House said."
and also that "U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman announced the government will buy 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil over a few months starting in the spring to add 11 million barrels to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve".
The link below
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html
states that for the USA Strategic Petroleum Reserve the "Current storage capacity - 727 million barrels
Current days of import protection in SPR - 59 days
(Maximum days of import protection in SPR - 118 days in 1985)"
George Bush wants to increase the current days of protection to about what they were in 1985. This requires buying another 727 million barrels.
Sam Bodman announced that the government will buy 100,000 barrels per day. At this buying rate it will take 7,270 days (20 years!) to buy 727 million barrels.
If the USA buys 1 million barrels per day then it would take two years to double SPR.
If the USA buys 0.5 million barrels per day then it would take four years.
The increase in annual global demand due to 0.5 million barrels per day to double USA SPR is another 0.6% (0.5/85). OPEC recently stated that they forecast global demand growth at about 1.5%. Wonder if part of their forecast includes an allowance for USA and other countries to increase their SPRs? Is this the real reason why Saudi Arabia is not "voluntarily" cutting production anymore?
The doubling of the USA SPR could increase annual demand significantly to over 2%! It could also act as a catalyst for high growth consumers China and India to act competitively and increase their demand to also have 120 days import protection from their SPRs.
under the eia reference case consumption scenario and assuming it takes the 10 years to fill, and current production rates of oil within US are constant at 9mbpd the US will be importing about 15mbpd, this would lead to covering 97 days of production, not the 120 that would be expected.
To double the length of time to 120 days in 10 years would take a reserve of about 1800 million barrels, which implies a filling rate of 300k barrels per day for the next 10 years.
yes i know the production rates of the US are optimistic by PO standards, however the eia predicts an increase to 10.4 mbpd. I split the difference and used constant production, which I consider a likely scenario if the alaskan oil field mentioned in the notes for the address (1mbpd) is opened up.
Andrew
--
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
**I consider a likely scenario if the alaskan oil field mentioned in the notes for the address (1mbpd) is opened up.
What 1mbpd field? If this is ANWR--well only one well has ever been drilled there. We don't know if there is any commercial quantity of hydrocarbons in area.
Paul
This sounds like a price support subsidy to the petroleum industry because prices have gone down a bit.
It seems to ideologically consistent with President Bush's normal position with respect to the oil industry. Kneeling.
The SPR fill will be at a rate of 1-million barrels/week ... not per day. It is a 20 year plan for construction and fill. It provides for 800 mil barrels increase from the present 700-mil in place.
This paves the way for a long standing goal of OECD/IEA to increase stocks from 55 days to 85 days.
The President's plan has an objective of reducing usa consumption by 2-mbd by 2017.
from aspo(72):
"Conventional manufacturing has now been in decline for several years, and agricultural production is also contracting, partly due to the depletion of the aquifers."
While not directly related to energy depletion, I feel that the fraction of the us 'energy balance' that is now imported is increasing, as the fraction of US gdp that is service based is increasing.
The depletion of the aquifers is also an environmental issue, but somehow i think that neither of these topics would end up being discussed as there is no way to fix them and win votes.
Does anyone know if the plan to increase alternative fuel vehicles from 3% to 15% by 2017 is sufficient to decrease oil consumption by the planned 2 mbpd?
It looks like the US is actually beginning to slightly care about its oil usage : more production (does anyone know if the 1Mbpd from the alaska area is feasible, and in what time frame?), more alternative fuels, less consumption, larger reserve.
The other side of this is its nothing that hasn't been promised before, and i don't know if it will happen this time.
Andrew
--
ps. oil rose $3 today, and the rise over the last week is $4.5 and looks like it could stay that way - i guess the week of cheap oil is over, even though fuel prices in Australia dropped below $1(au)/L for a few days.
C'mon...who will take up the bet?
Will Prince George say it????
Will the words "Peak Oil" pass those lips?
Or can we just count how many euphemisms he will use in place of PO?
It could be a drinking game..."Islamo-fascism"...take a shot..."break our addiction to oil"...pass the Tequila...."focus on alternatives"...hic, where's the hooch?
Honestly, I think he'll say it not just once, but several times.
The Bush energy proposals are now online at the White House website. They look similar to what was posted at TOD as a PDF.
Bush: Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal? [link]
I don't expect D.C. to do anything but make things worse.
Here's a link to the White House Briefing on the Energy section of the SOTU:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html
In the 20% reduction in 10 years bit, they say "In 2017, this will displace 20 percent of PROJECTED annual gasoline use."
Does anyone here know what those projections are? And what assumptions are made in them?
Bush's plan is maximally sleazy and wrong on the most important issue which could make a short-term difference: fuel efficiency standards.
Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule.
Note, extending the "current Light Truck Rule". THAT IS EXACTLY THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.
Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.
In other words, make cars, and uniquely cars more expensive (though fuel efficient), less safe and less powerful and desirable versus trucks.
THAT WILL WORSTEN THE PROBLEM.
The problem is that too many people drive trucks when they should drive cars. Changing that will do more than supporting more hybrid drive trains on already efficient cars.
The correct solution is first to eliminate the egregious exception that gives trucks such a preference.
If it uses more fuel, yes even knowing it's a truck, it will be less preferred.
Bush is 7 years late on this one and getting later every day!
It looks like California will do it for him first.
Will Bush at least allude to a connection between energy/oil and our need to stay in Iraq/Middle East?
He should. We all recognize it. And can his approval ratings in relation to Iraq get any worse? If we are at/near PO, I think the public is ready for the diagnosis. Does anyone else find it interesting that the decision to double the SPR comes a few months after Mr. Simmons' presentation to the Department of Defense (with an election in the interim)?
Funny how the Republicans get the environmental results while the Democrats get the reputation.
-Teddy Roosevelt inaugurated the world's first National Park when he set aside Yellowstone. Throughout his two terms he set aside millions of acres of natural areas.
-Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and signed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
-George W Bush bestowed monument status on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which span 1,200 nautical miles. To put this area in context, this national monument is more than 100 times larger than Yosemite National Park. It's larger than 46 of 50 states, and more than seven times larger than all our national marine sanctuaries combined. It is the largest wildlife refuge in the world. Bush also signed the Renewable Fuels Standard establishing ethanol and biodiesel as viable commodities that will reduce pollution.
The mainstream media likes to spin the narrative that the Democrats are the environmentally aware party but they never do anything to deserve that reputation. What is more common is seeing people like Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy opposing offshore wind farms that block his elite view of the water. Pathetic.
Oh my, Keithster100, I just heard the crashing sound of Hell freezing over. The Republicans and the Democrats are equally horrible at protecting the environment. Both political parties are financed by the same corporate and industrial interests, and both have drunk the same kool-aide of infinite economic & population growth.
The Earth is dying from the human plague. Future generations will inherit a hellish planet which is depleted, degraded, polluted, abused, and inhospitable to human life. They will curse their ancestors for its selfishness, recklessness, and sheer stupidity.
But there is no need to worry. Once Homo sapiens have become extinct Nature will clean up our mess and return the Earth back to a pristine condition with a flourishing diversity of life.
The Earth will become a better place once humankind has finished exterminating itself from the Universe. God bless the fossil fuel industry!
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
In spite of the Republican record for 'getting things done' it is unlikely that Bush will get anything done unless he tries. It is even more unlikely that he will get anything done unless he stops getting in the way.
As it is I wouldn't hold my breath. As a matter of fact, holding your breath in a lot of North American cities is probably preferable to breathing near a freeway.
dmathew -- if you hate humanity so much why don't you kill yourself?
Just curious how you justify your existence.
Hello cycling in hollywood,
I live for the sunshine, the sand, the water, and life itself.
I don't hate humankind at all. Those who want to learn must first learn to listen.
Now what do you live for?