President Bush joins rush to ethanol fuel
02-01-2006, 06:37 PM
#1
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
President Bush joins rush to ethanol fuel
Bush joins rush to ethanol fuel - - Harry Stoffer - - Source: Automotive News
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, a former oilman, is getting on the ethanol bandwagon.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, the president said he wants ethanol -- not just from corn but also from nonfood plants -- to be competitive with gasoline as a vehicle fuel within six years.
He told Congress and a national TV audience that the move to "this new kind of ethanol" is part of a plan to replace 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
"America is addicted to oil," he said.
Bush's plan, which he called the Advanced Energy Initiative, also includes more government-funded research on hydrogen fuel. He called for better batteries for hybrid vehicles, which combine internal combustion engines and electric power.
Three years ago, Bush emphasized hydrogen fuel cells in his State of the Union message. But other options, such as ethanol, have gained ground in public discussions as more practical near-term alternatives to gasoline.
Automakers, especially General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler group, build hundreds of thousands of vehicles each year that can use a fuel called E85 as well as gasoline. E85 is 85 percent ethanol, a kind of alcohol, and 15 percent gasoline.
Critics call production of these flexible-fuel vehicles a phony move by car companies to earn credits that help them meet federal fuel economy standards. Most of the vehicles never burn anything but gasoline. Only about 600 filling stations, mostly in the corn-growing Midwest, offer E85.
But GM and Ford insist that E85 is a realistic alternative to gasoline. They seek ways to expand availability of and consumer demand for the fuel. Coalitions of interest groups, including environmentalists and national defense experts, have joined them.
Early reaction to Bush's plan called it too little and too long-term.
"The president offered a very modest proposal to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- a promise he's made and broken in the past," said Jerome Ringo, president of a coalition called Apollo Alliance.
Jason Mark, clean-vehicles director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "The president has admitted we're addicted to oil. There's no reason to drag that addiction out 20 years."
Last August, Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill that incorporated many Bush administration energy policies. But when gasoline prices soared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many officials and activists in Washington demanded more action.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, the president said he wants ethanol -- not just from corn but also from nonfood plants -- to be competitive with gasoline as a vehicle fuel within six years.
He told Congress and a national TV audience that the move to "this new kind of ethanol" is part of a plan to replace 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
"America is addicted to oil," he said.
Bush's plan, which he called the Advanced Energy Initiative, also includes more government-funded research on hydrogen fuel. He called for better batteries for hybrid vehicles, which combine internal combustion engines and electric power.
Three years ago, Bush emphasized hydrogen fuel cells in his State of the Union message. But other options, such as ethanol, have gained ground in public discussions as more practical near-term alternatives to gasoline.
Automakers, especially General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler group, build hundreds of thousands of vehicles each year that can use a fuel called E85 as well as gasoline. E85 is 85 percent ethanol, a kind of alcohol, and 15 percent gasoline.
Critics call production of these flexible-fuel vehicles a phony move by car companies to earn credits that help them meet federal fuel economy standards. Most of the vehicles never burn anything but gasoline. Only about 600 filling stations, mostly in the corn-growing Midwest, offer E85.
But GM and Ford insist that E85 is a realistic alternative to gasoline. They seek ways to expand availability of and consumer demand for the fuel. Coalitions of interest groups, including environmentalists and national defense experts, have joined them.
Early reaction to Bush's plan called it too little and too long-term.
"The president offered a very modest proposal to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- a promise he's made and broken in the past," said Jerome Ringo, president of a coalition called Apollo Alliance.
Jason Mark, clean-vehicles director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "The president has admitted we're addicted to oil. There's no reason to drag that addiction out 20 years."
Last August, Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill that incorporated many Bush administration energy policies. But when gasoline prices soared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many officials and activists in Washington demanded more action.
02-02-2006, 01:28 AM
#5
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,435
Received 5,097 Likes
on
2,706 Posts
coughGMcough....since they are the one car line to have an ethanol based line of vehicles.
02-02-2006, 05:37 AM
#6
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
Originally Posted by The Sarlacc
coughGMcough....since they are the one car line to have an ethanol based line of vehicles.
I wonder... what about ethanol-electric hybrids?
And how long until ExxonMobil and BP start buying cornfields from farmers in the US and sugarcane fields from countries in latin america?
02-02-2006, 07:33 AM
#7
Masshole
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 45
Posts: 3,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by einsatz
Doesn't Ford have their flexifuel thing on the Taurus and other models as well? I thought I heard some Mercedes Benz c-classes are also compatible?
http://www.e85fuel.com/pdf/2006_ffv_list.pdf
Trending Topics
02-02-2006, 11:24 AM
#8
The hair says it all
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Age: 38
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he needs to offer incentive, something like $500M to the first auto maker to put fuel cells in half of their cars
capitalism works best when theres competition and money
capitalism works best when theres competition and money
02-02-2006, 01:11 PM
#9
I'm all for ethanol fuel - I hear it's dirtier fuel but we have to get away from being tied down to foreign oil sources.
02-02-2006, 02:35 PM
#10
Senior Moderator
GM and Ford do the flexi fuel thing down in Brazil...
IIRC by law, if you sell gas, you have to sell ethanol...
I really have to research this E85 stuff...
IIRC by law, if you sell gas, you have to sell ethanol...
I really have to research this E85 stuff...
02-02-2006, 02:52 PM
#11
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by gavriil
I liked how he pushed an aggressive fuel agenda during the speech. He sounds serious about ethanol. Let's see what happens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/po...ewanted=2&_r=1
The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=23074
02-02-2006, 04:42 PM
#12
Senior Moderator
Except that:
-Most corn fields are in the middle of the US, while most people live on the coasts, so the cost to ship this stuff is higher than gasoline.
-Pesticides have to be used to grow the corn that is used to make the fuel, clearly this is not better for the environment...
-Ethanol is more corrosive, so the same parts used in gasoline only cars cannot be used in cars using ethanol fuel.
-There are very few stations that even offer E85 - never seen one around here, that's for sure.
-These and other points make ethanol fuel more expensive to produce than regular gasoline.
I know someone who works for a gas company and that's what he told me. We need other ways to cut down on gasoline use.
-Most corn fields are in the middle of the US, while most people live on the coasts, so the cost to ship this stuff is higher than gasoline.
-Pesticides have to be used to grow the corn that is used to make the fuel, clearly this is not better for the environment...
-Ethanol is more corrosive, so the same parts used in gasoline only cars cannot be used in cars using ethanol fuel.
-There are very few stations that even offer E85 - never seen one around here, that's for sure.
-These and other points make ethanol fuel more expensive to produce than regular gasoline.
I know someone who works for a gas company and that's what he told me. We need other ways to cut down on gasoline use.
02-02-2006, 05:23 PM
#13
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethanol is not the answer. It is feasible for the midwest, but not the coast regions. Instead of pushing Ethanol, here is a bright idea: Make automobiles more efficient. Increase the CAFE requirements for cars and especially trucks/SUVs. Bush should make the DOT/EPA push to make Direct Injection required on all vehicles in 2-3 years and displacement on demand required on all 6 and 8 cylinder engines. Work on making SUVs and trucks lighter and more aerodynamic. Auto Manufacturers can easily do this without adding a lot of cost, but need the gov't to push them.
02-02-2006, 06:11 PM
#14
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,435
Received 5,097 Likes
on
2,706 Posts
Luv - I can't vouch for anything you've except that I've heard ethanol will breakdown/wear out a normal engine over time.
When I sold Hondas...we were advised to recommend NOT using gasoline that has added ethanol to it. Cept maybe once in a blue moon if you have to.
To this day, I go by that. I don't use ethanol laced gas if I don't have to.
Personally, I too think there are other methods then ethanol.
When I sold Hondas...we were advised to recommend NOT using gasoline that has added ethanol to it. Cept maybe once in a blue moon if you have to.
To this day, I go by that. I don't use ethanol laced gas if I don't have to.
Personally, I too think there are other methods then ethanol.
02-02-2006, 07:04 PM
#15
I feel the need...
Originally Posted by gavriil
I liked how he pushed an aggressive fuel agenda during the speech. He sounds serious about ethanol. Let's see what happens.
Do you like how he signed a tax-advantage to leasees of heavy gas guzzling SUV's a few years ago.
Classic case of do as I say, not as I do.
02-02-2006, 07:33 PM
#16
Senior Moderator
Ethanol is fine in cars that are DESIGNED to use it... That's the whole point of Flexi-fuel vehicles... They are DESIGNED to be run on both gas and Ethanol :shakehead
The new gas formulas will reak havoc on some older classic car fuel systems. Know why ?? Because older cars weren't DESIGNED to run on todays formulas...
I'm not going to say that we will all be putting Ethanol in our current vehicles tomorrow, but flexi-fuel vehicles are just another option that we should explore...It's going to take awhile to build the infastructure to deliver alternatives to gasoline.
Brazil grows alot of sugar cane, so that's why they've had a easier time to get the public to buy into the how Ethanol thang...
http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/spec...al/ethanol.htm
Now the price difference between Ethanol and Gasoline isn't as great as it used to be, and if the Americans can be persuaded into buying Flexi-fuel vehicles, then the costs associated with Ethanol will go down as production increases...
The new gas formulas will reak havoc on some older classic car fuel systems. Know why ?? Because older cars weren't DESIGNED to run on todays formulas...
I'm not going to say that we will all be putting Ethanol in our current vehicles tomorrow, but flexi-fuel vehicles are just another option that we should explore...It's going to take awhile to build the infastructure to deliver alternatives to gasoline.
Brazil grows alot of sugar cane, so that's why they've had a easier time to get the public to buy into the how Ethanol thang...
(Henry )Ford planned to use ethanol as the primary fuel for his Model T, however, the less expensive gasoline emerged as the dominant fuel. Vehicles designed to operate on E85 are called Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) and can function on either conventional gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of the two within the same tank.
Today, Ethanol is produced mainly from corn, but can be made from virtually any starch feed stock such as sugar cane, wheat, or barley.
Today, Ethanol is produced mainly from corn, but can be made from virtually any starch feed stock such as sugar cane, wheat, or barley.
Now the price difference between Ethanol and Gasoline isn't as great as it used to be, and if the Americans can be persuaded into buying Flexi-fuel vehicles, then the costs associated with Ethanol will go down as production increases...
02-02-2006, 08:43 PM
#17
I feel the need...
"What About Biofuels Such as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"
Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.
In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"
. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.
And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.
Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, (and probably the best of the biofuels) but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30.
While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.
The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm, an idea that is currently gaining traction in some circles. Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As journalist George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster.
Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," this project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems. The same is true for other, equally ambitious plans such as using recycled farm waste, switchgrass, etc. These projects all look great on paper or in the laboratory. Some of them may even end up providing a small amount of commercially available energy at some undetermined point in the future. However, in the context of our colossal demand for petroleum and the small amount of time we have remaining before the peak, these projects can't be expected to be more than a "drop in the bucket."
Tragically, many well-meaing people attempting to develop solutions don't even understand this. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:
This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
without huge reduction in the volume of production and
consumption going on.
The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster Fuck Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:
Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.
For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.
Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."
Biodiesel advocates can get downright nasty when somebody points out any of the above described limitations of their favorite fuel. For instance, in a December 2005 article entitled, "The Most Destructive Crop on Earth No Solution to the Energy Crisis," well known progressive journalist George Monbiot, recounted his experiences attempting to point out the limits of biodiesel:
The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making
diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as
I have ever been sent for my stance on the Iraq war. The
biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in
their denial as the executives of Exxon.
If biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are such poor substitutes for oil, why then do you hear about them so much? The answer becomes obvious once you follow the money: the vast majority of the biofuels produced in this country are (as mentioned earlier) produced by giant agribusiness conglomerates such as Archer Daneiles Midland. Investigative reporter Mike Ruppert points out:
Archer Daniels Midland laughs all the way to the bank. With a
price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 17:1, every dollar of net
profit thrown into their coffers by politicians or investment
advisors selling the snake oil of alternative fuels generates
$17 in stock value which ADM will happily sell off before all
markets succumb to Peak Oil. That $17 came out of your
pocket whether you invested or not.
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.
In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"
. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.
And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.
Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, (and probably the best of the biofuels) but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30.
While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.
The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm, an idea that is currently gaining traction in some circles. Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As journalist George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster.
Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," this project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems. The same is true for other, equally ambitious plans such as using recycled farm waste, switchgrass, etc. These projects all look great on paper or in the laboratory. Some of them may even end up providing a small amount of commercially available energy at some undetermined point in the future. However, in the context of our colossal demand for petroleum and the small amount of time we have remaining before the peak, these projects can't be expected to be more than a "drop in the bucket."
Tragically, many well-meaing people attempting to develop solutions don't even understand this. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:
This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
without huge reduction in the volume of production and
consumption going on.
The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster Fuck Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:
Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.
For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.
Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."
Biodiesel advocates can get downright nasty when somebody points out any of the above described limitations of their favorite fuel. For instance, in a December 2005 article entitled, "The Most Destructive Crop on Earth No Solution to the Energy Crisis," well known progressive journalist George Monbiot, recounted his experiences attempting to point out the limits of biodiesel:
The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making
diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as
I have ever been sent for my stance on the Iraq war. The
biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in
their denial as the executives of Exxon.
If biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are such poor substitutes for oil, why then do you hear about them so much? The answer becomes obvious once you follow the money: the vast majority of the biofuels produced in this country are (as mentioned earlier) produced by giant agribusiness conglomerates such as Archer Daneiles Midland. Investigative reporter Mike Ruppert points out:
Archer Daniels Midland laughs all the way to the bank. With a
price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 17:1, every dollar of net
profit thrown into their coffers by politicians or investment
advisors selling the snake oil of alternative fuels generates
$17 in stock value which ADM will happily sell off before all
markets succumb to Peak Oil. That $17 came out of your
pocket whether you invested or not.
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
02-02-2006, 08:50 PM
#18
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
Originally Posted by EdgarFanCLS
Full list of E85-compatible, flexible fuel vehicles:
http://www.e85fuel.com/pdf/2006_ffv_list.pdf
http://www.e85fuel.com/pdf/2006_ffv_list.pdf
Funny how the vehicles from Mazda and Nissan are pickup trucks
You know who they're targeting, knowing where most of the e85 fuel comes from.
02-02-2006, 09:44 PM
#19
02-02-2006, 10:47 PM
#21
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,435
Received 5,097 Likes
on
2,706 Posts
Greenie...I understand the point of Flexi fuel engines 
I just don't think ethanol is the answer in all cases.
I just don't think ethanol is the answer in all cases.
02-05-2006, 11:58 AM
#22
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Administration Backs Off Bush's Vow
Administration Backs Off Bush's Vow to Reduce Mideast Oil Imports
By Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.
The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."
Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
Not exactly, though, it turns out.
"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.
Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.
Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.
Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.
Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.
The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.
That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.
But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.
"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand...up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.
Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal.
"We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards. Copyright 2006, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
By Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.
The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."
Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
Not exactly, though, it turns out.
"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.
Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.
Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.
Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.
Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.
The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.
That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.
But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.
"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand...up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.
Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal.
"We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards. Copyright 2006, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
02-05-2006, 01:41 PM
#23
Race Director
People can spout off all kinds of things, but until there's incentive to change something, the status quo is hard to change in society.
You could have some trusted scientist declare tomorrow that we're definitely runing out of oil in 20 years but no one will do anything about it for at least 15 years.
Biker, who's surprised plain ole boring diesel hasn't made any news.
You could have some trusted scientist declare tomorrow that we're definitely runing out of oil in 20 years but no one will do anything about it for at least 15 years.
Biker, who's surprised plain ole boring diesel hasn't made any news.
02-05-2006, 01:43 PM
#24
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by The Sarlacc
Greenie...I understand the point of Flexi fuel engines
I just don't think ethanol is the answer in all cases.
I just don't think ethanol is the answer in all cases.
In Brazil, Ethanol is cheaper then gas...
In the US, the cost might be the same, but with the way gas prices are, I don't think the cost of getting Ethanol out of the midwest will make it an unattractive alternative pricewise...
edit: I saw a really good show on the history channel (or discovery) about ethanol
02-05-2006, 07:20 PM
#25
Race Director
Originally Posted by GreenMonster
In Brazil, Ethanol is cheaper then gas...
l
l
BTW, gas milage drops the more ethanol you use.
02-06-2006, 08:37 AM
#27
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Age: 44
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PistonFan
"What About Biofuels Such as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"
Archer Daniels Midland laughs all the way to the bank. With a
price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 17:1, every dollar of net
profit thrown into their coffers by politicians or investment
advisors selling the snake oil of alternative fuels generates
$17 in stock value which ADM will happily sell off before all
markets succumb to Peak Oil. That $17 came out of your
pocket whether you invested or not.
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
Archer Daniels Midland laughs all the way to the bank. With a
price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 17:1, every dollar of net
profit thrown into their coffers by politicians or investment
advisors selling the snake oil of alternative fuels generates
$17 in stock value which ADM will happily sell off before all
markets succumb to Peak Oil. That $17 came out of your
pocket whether you invested or not.
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
. That article is complete tripe. My parents' business runs a lot of diesel trucks, and they can call up the local soy biodiesel distributor and buy 1000 gallons of biodiesel for 25 cents/gallon cheaper than dino diesel, and it will run great without any modifications to the fuel delivery system in the trucks. If that isn't a viable alternative energy source, I don't know what is.
Last edited by TSX Hokie; 02-06-2006 at 08:41 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
joflewbyu2
5G TLX (2015-2020)
139
10-08-2015 11:16 AM
