The USA: energy self sufficiency - political myth or reality? 15

[jmw]

I don't want this to be political, as this isn't what this site is about. This is purely to ask you all as expert engineers just how the USA can become energy self-sufficient i.e. no longer dependent on outside oil.

This, it would appear, is one of the poiltical claims of the democratic presidential contender, that he will make the USA self-sufficient.

OK, sure, he can say to the Californians, sorry, but we need your offshore oil. But what, practically can he do and what will be the consequences either of him doing it, or trying to do it?

Of course, if I have misunderstood him, please tell me so. I'd hate to vote for the wrong loony.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[PSE]

And did the candidate in question give a time frame for such self efficiency? For how long would such self sufficiency last? The US could be self sufficient now for a (brief) time. No candidate can expect to truly deliver on such a statement as it will take several administrations all buying into the same vision in order to make it happen. Aside from the "space race" culminating in the Apollo project I do not think that any other visionary programs have survived changes in administrations. It would likely take the length of a couple of administrations just to "study" the problem.

Such a plan would have to be:

Socially acceptable by the public
Scalable
"Economical" (including any subsidies)
Sustainable
Capable of being incorporated into existing infrastructure

A worthy vision, but from my point of view, not something deliverable by the individual presenting it.

Regards,

 

[metengr]

Typical political agenda and basically worthless information from presidential candidates. I believe the US could indeed reduce oil consumption, resulting in less dependency on foreign oil. The reality of the situation is that most people in the US own one or more cars and will not sacrifice their current life style to use mass transit, or bicycles or motor scooters to travel on a daily basis. We are a mobile society. People are moving further out from urban locations to afford property and housing, thus furher increasing the dependency of the automobile.

The only way for us consumers to change life style would be a permanent shortage of oil that would curtail gasoline supplies, and force the price per gallon of gasoline to $4 or $5. This would place enormous pressure on politicians to promote active development of alternative energy sources for cars (electric or propane fired) or enhancement of mass transit systems to allow people to commute from remote areas to urban locations.

 

[pmkPE]

I think it does come down to poilitics. Congress, the senate and the white house have had sufficient opportunities over the last several decades and different administrations to set policy regarding fuel efficiency of the automotive industry. But they start, and then they stop. It is a part of the free economy - they inially have good intentions to mandate controls, then they think about the free market and to let the market decide. Back in the late '70s and the '80s cars were downsizing in regards to their horsepower. Fuel prices dropped from what they were during the oil embargo years of the mid '70s and now gas hogs are back on the road. My dad's Buick's in the late '60s got 10-12 miles per gallon. GTO's in that time period got 8! Gas was less than $0.30 per gallon. Gas skyrocketed in the 70s and engine efficient car sales went up. In the late 80s and all through the 90s incomes rose and we returned to gas guzzling SUVs that weigh over 3 tons. In Europe gas is over $5.00 per gallon, space is tight and not nearly as mant people have vehicles for the family. (We have three drivers, in our family and each has a car).

What I know from intuition is that we live on a finite planet. The resources are finite therefore at some point in time we will not be able to use petroleum for fuel or plastics or asphalt pavement and whatever else we benifit from its existence. Hopefully, the right people with a social conscience AND the scientific capabilities know what the extent of our natural resources are and are helping to develop new technologies and/or political policy to help guide us and the world through the end times of the petroleum reserves.

As far as the democratic candidate is concerned he has been in the senate for twenty years - why is he bringing this up now? What has he authored in the ways of energy self-sufficiency in that time? Has he known (just since just yesterday) what the secrets are to energy independence?

 

[sms]

I think both candidates are expecting people like us to come up with a magic bullet, or a perpetual motion machine, or some such to solve the problem. It's a nice dream, but I don't see it happening soon...

So for your pleasure, here are the design parameters as I see them, feel free to add to my list.

The solution to energy independence:

1) Must not include the expansion of oil drilling activities any where in North America, but it is ok to drill elsewhere in the world.

2) Must not include the destruction or cutting down of any trees, or the elimination of any wetlands.

3) Should include the elimination of all automobile exhaust emissions except H20, or N2. NO3, CO, CO2, and volatile organic compounds are strictly forbidden.

4)Should eliminate any power plant emissions as well.

5) Cannot in any way create radioactive byproducts from any form of nuclear reaction. (Eliminates fission, and fusion as well).

6) Cannot impact the natural vistas of our countryside. (Elimanates wind power)

7) Cannot impact the natural ecosystems of our rivers or oceans, (eliminates hydropower and tidal conversions)

8) Must not involve the use of hazardous or polluting chemical (pretty well eliminates known photovoltaic systems).

9) Must not include the use of any pesticides, or genetic engineering (pretty well eliminates converting crops to energy).

I am sure there are more...

My conclusions? If we want to maintain the status quo, then we need to invade a country that has lots of oil, but no trees, and use it until their oil runs out. As long as the drilling doesn't happen here, it is no problem.

If we really want to satisfy all of the constraints above, then we need to eliminate the majority of the population, and return to a simple life of living off the land such as the native Americans did prior to North America being invaded by those nasty Europeans.

(Just in case it is not clear, the above comments are meant as sarcasm)

 

[corus]

Advances in technology today have seen the appearance of electric/petrol driven cars which don't rely 100% for their energy from oil, and cars which can run on used vegetable oil (though they do smell of chips, or fries as they say in the US). Rapeseed oil can be used to drive engines though what acreage has to be grown for the equivalent of a gallon of petrol I don't know. Needless to say there are many ways around the problem but I would doubt if any oil companies would be interested, nor their funded polticial representatives, if it took away their revenue.

corus

 

[moltenmetal]

corus: it's questionable as to whether or not pure canola oil actually generates ANY net energy as a fuel. The same goes for sugar-sourced ethanol- I don't have figures for cellulose-sourced ethanol, but doubt there's anything miraculous there either. It takes so much land, fertilizer and tractor fuel to generate a gallon of canola oil for food uses that if there is any energetic benefit, it's marginal. The result is that you'd have to convert huge tracts of arable land from food agriculture to fuel generation- probably more than there is in the entire US. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be making biodiesel from canola oil and other waste oils, as these can be blended with petroleum-source diesel to reduce emisssions.

Hydrogen is no salvation either. Until you replace 100% of the electrical generation infrastructure with renewables (with or without nuclear, your choice), there's no net energy efficiency benefit to be had from hydrogen if the original energy source is fossil fuels. It might be a way for you to reduce oil dependency by using coal as your hydrogen source, but I doubt that would make the environmentalists too happy.

The only hope for true US fossil fuel trade independence would be a massive restructuring of your society. The majority of personal automobiles would have to go in favour of public transit. City planning would have to take a 180 degree turn, focusing around public transit and higher population density. You'd have to replace 100% of your existing oil-fired power plants with coal or nuclear so that the remaining oil could be refined for chemical and remaining transportation fuel uses. And you'd have to exploit your oil shale deposits on top of that.

If independence from Middle Eastern oil were the only goal, you could get by with massive investments in Canada's oilsands projects. Enough for 100 years+ at current consumption levels. Estimates are that the capital to do this would cost less than what the US spends on its military in a year. But this heavy oil is considerably less energy-efficient than the low lift-cost oil from the Middle East- it takes more gallons of raw material to produce a gallon of finished product, resulting in more carbon dioxide emissions.

But let's face reality here. It isn't going to happen. US culture is based around total dependence on cheap oil, and US foreign policy will take the directions necesary to keep up the supply of low lift-cost oil from the Middle East until it's utterly exhausted. Chinese and Indian consumption will increasingly drive up oil prices worldwide, and increased prices will lead to some pressure to reduce US demand, but I doubt you'll see the political will in the US to tax fuels at European rates. While fuel remains cheaper in real dollars than it was in the '70s, there's no real pressure to do anything to curb demand.

 

[jmw]

The trouble with public tranport in the US, and elsewhere, for all I know, is that for many communities it is the kiss of death.

Metro services have proven to be the ideal means for the inner city poverty stricken to access the richer suburbs for the purposes of burglary and other larcenous behaviour. The better of suburbanites being well equipped with cars se less need for these public transport systems especially as city and payroll taxxes are what forced many of them out of the cities in the first place thereby concentrating the poor within the city where their is no work and no busines to pay taxes to pay welfare.

The modern city is an expensive luxury and we see many of the more affluent seduced by images of tranquile suburn or rural living fleeing to the countryside or semi-rural comunities. This isn't just an American probem. Berlin is bankrupt, and that country has very high unemployment but it is in the US where i believe the majority of the welfare bill falls on the city and not the state, or am i wrong here?

It isn't just a case of getting people out of their cars, it is what public transport will do to lifestyles that counts a much as anything and while curtailing car use might seem a simple enough solution, like anything else, it is the secondary effects that will cause the problems. You may pursuade people to use their cars less, but you may have a bigger problem if you want to channel crime into their neighbourhood, wittingly or unwittingly.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[tblaser]

JMW:

So, eliminate the big cities and have us all live in villages? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. There is something in the small-town atmosphere which did, in the past, limit some crime and other problems. How do we deal with issues such as employment, tranportation/importation of goods and services and people?
Where do we put factories, a no-mans- land? or does each village have a blacksmith or high-tech micro-reactor.

Nothing like a good topic to provoke questions.

 

[jmw]

I think I need to re-read Schumachers book "Small is Beutiful"

We should also remember that some of our isntitutions came into being under one set of circumstances and that those circumstances no longer exist. Hospitals are as recent as Lister, as we know them, and the trend is now back to small community hospitals and peripatetic surgical teams doing routine surgery locally, not yet back on your own kitchen table, but if the superbugs take over, it may come to that. Cities are the same. If we didn't have cities, would we want them today?

This isn't a forced change, it is a change more and more people are electing to take. It is society evolving as we live it!

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[davefitz]

I think a case can be made that the cities did not rapidly degenerate until after the flight of the middle class in the early 1960's. This exodus was made possible by cheap cars and cheap fuel , making it possible for the family to live in a suburban bedroom community while dad commuted by car to the job. Everyone who could afford to leave the city left, and by definition, anyone who remained could not afford to leave . Also, there was initiated in the 1960's a "war on poverty" which enabled poor rural folk to migrate to the cities and sustain themselves on welfare and food stamps.

Remove the cheap auto and fuel and you are left with a lot of people stuck in suburbia ( and rural areas) with no practical way to get to work. In particular, for persons of marginal income( working poor), a tripling of fuel prices would make it impossible to get to work, unless massive carpooling were to become fahionable for everyone ( only done today by undocumented immigrants).

I think the US would be energy independent if they reduced their oil consumption to 30% of current levels. Basically, one would need to revert to the lifestyle of the 1950's, or emulate the lifestyle of 3rd world countries , or emulate the consumptionhabits of most undocumented workers
( seriously- see how they make ends meet.)

 

[Guest0527211403]

"Metro services have proven to be the ideal means for the inner city poverty stricken to access the richer suburbs for the purposes of burglary and other larcenous behaviour."

So, having a bus between the city and the suburbs is welcoming crime into your neighborhoods?

News flash: The majority of the crime in your suburban heaven is committed by your suburban kids, who try oh so hard to make themselves feel like the "inner city thugs" they watch on MTV. I work with kids on both sides on a daily basis, and I will be the first in a long line of people to tell you that the kids from the cities are far less likely to break into your house tonight than the trust-fund brats who are raised in the 'burbs.

Funny enough, its these same suburban kids who you see driving around in the new SUV that daddy just bought for them. And when they're not cruising the streets, they are just idling in the McDonalds parking lot, complaining about how bored they are. Taking the buses out of the suburbs only puts more of these kids into cars. Not exactly helping ANY problem.

And really, who takes a bus to go rob a house? Wake up.

 

[sms]

Justkeepgivener, you get a star from me for that last. Very well put!

 

[metengr]

I don't know what jmw was thinking, but I live 30 miles from a large city. The city has been undergoing re-development since the 1990 boom years that it is almost impossible to afford housing. The city is undergoing such gentrification that original residents are complaining that taxes are becoming unaffordable. So much for poor urban areas and mass transit. In fact, I have started to see more reverse commuting - city living to suburbs for work.

Again, it makes no difference urban or rural, our society would be unwilling to sacrifice cars. However, I just noticed that the price per barrel of oil hit $44 bucks, while the Dow and Nasdaq hit more lows. Just wait, if this trend continues we may be riding bicycles to work!!!!

 

[Tobalcane]

“The trouble with public tranport in the US, and elsewhere, for all I know, is that for many communities it is the kiss of death.”

I beg to differ. Here in the Boston area public transportation is very positive. Towns that have a stop are becoming famous almost at a celebrity level. Real estate has gone up ridiculously in these towns. These towns are now becoming more of an up and coming white collar communities. Where people who make the Boston salary and live and spend it in the suburbs. The people who use the public transportation are praising it. They have a strait shot into Boston versus being stuck in traffic and then get there and look for parking. A parking space in Boston can cost $100,000.00 or more! I know guys who will not drive into Boston. They would go to a town that has public transportation and take the train in.

“Metro services have proven to be the ideal means for the inner city poverty stricken to access the richer suburbs for the purposes of burglary and other larcenous behaviour.”

This has the flavor of a politician just saying the wrong statement at the wrong time. I grew up in NYC and I knew some shady characters and trust me, they would not take a train out to the suburbs, walk five to ten miles to the nearest sweetest target, rob it, then walk five to ten miles back to the train. Even if inner city kids just wanted to hang out, there is no place for them to hang out in. Most stops in the suburbs are just really big parking lots. Boy that is exciting. There is no reason what so ever for inner city teens or young adults to take the train out to the burbs.





Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[rhodie]

Wasn't Dean Kamen's "IT" or "Ginger" supposed to solve all this nonsense? Too bad the thing was 99% hype and 1% useful...

There is no engineering solution to vainity... and too many Americans use personal automobiles as an extension of self image, or rather- that image they'd like to extend the public.

Sometimes this overwhelming pressure to "express one's personality" through a nice car overshadows the necessity of efficentcy and energy conservation in today's USA. The true scope and definition of the issue escapes the mass public consciousness.

 

[Guest0527211403]

Here is an interesting article on the market for Solar Power. It was published in the Toronto Star, but a lot of the issues raised invlove US policies on energy regulation.

A little background info for those who read: Hydro One is a corporation that was created as a result of the Priviatisation of Ontario's energy grids. One of the worst mistakes made in our Province's history... in my opinion at least.

Many people reading this will undoubtedly remember the 2003 blackout that they mention as well... Still, it was nice to see the stars from the roof of my building, a rare occurrence in the city.

Further down the article speaks about a Laundromat in Toronto that uses Solar Power to pre-heat the incoming water, reducing the load on the Natural Gas boilers. They also use city water to cool the air during the summer time, the warmed water then being used as Hot water in the laundry machines.

I had the opportunity to visit this laundromat a while back. The answers to many of the USA's, and indeed the rest of the world's upcoming energy issues can be found just by taking a look at solutions like this, and then looking beyond at how else we can reduce our dependence on something that won't always be there.

The policies in question are the ones that would offer benefits to people and businesses who use these systems, helping to offset the initial cost of the equipment. As of now, it is difficult to see the rewards in being energy conscious, especially when you have Ol' Tex in the White House backing out of almost every energy saving initiative (ironically, his Texas ranch uses Geothermal power, and is a model of energy efficiency... Does he know something you don't???).

Click Here to see the article.

 

[liberty]

COAL is the answer to USA energy self-sufficiency. Coal and natural gas support 2/3 of our current generated electricity, the remainder from OIL, nuclear, renewables, you know... Research is in progress to improve the efficiency and cleanliness of coal combustion on a wide scale, the concepts are already proven. They are developing practical carbon sequestration methods to match, which prevent the escape of greenhouse gases and also exist in the lab now. When you burn coal in the right environment there is virtually no ash (waste). The sequestered carbon might be used for building materials.

If American drivers can't accept electric-powered cars right away, there will be hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and eventually H2-burning internal combustion engines (they already have a mostly-stock Mazda RX-8 prototype running on H2.) H2 can be safely cooked up in your garage each night, in an appliance fed by your electric service and water utility. Diesel oil would still be needed in the long term, but by replacing much of our current fuel with smarter coal combustion, it can be cut back to levels US sources can support.

Power companies will resist buying new technology when their current plants still have 30 or more years of life remaining. But politicians do have the power to remove those barriers-to-entry the government puts in place to insulate the well-connected power lobby from competition. This will take political courage, to accept campaign donations from the entrenched power companies (as each candidate has) and then "allow" small co-ops to use new technology to compete against them, new technology even the government is actively funding:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/index.html

We have enough coal within our borders to support current usage and growth rates for at least the next 300 years. By then we'll have solved our dependence on domestic coal, probably with a big mirror in orbit that reflects concentrated sunlight down to a photochemical power plant on the roof of your great-great-great-great grandson's house, or other method satisfying all of sms' criteria listed above.

 

[stabmaster]

The question posed was one which specified foreign oil, although the subject specified energy in general. There must be a clear distinction here. Our resources in non-renewable energy don't extend very far in terms of fuels as compared to "other energy" in general.

Fuel independence will probably happen first by necessity.

I personally believe that it will come in 3 stages. The first one will take advantage of infra-structure already in place. Biofuels such as biodiesel will lead the path and scratch the surface. Presently, short term goals are to produce 400 million gallons of BD per year. Long term goals are to reach 8 billion gallons/yr. We consume well over 50 billion gallons of BD per year. 8 billion will overreach our waste oil/recycled oil and farmed oil resources as of now. Stage 1 will be extended by farming more efficient biomass such as mustard and algae, and making a real market out of trap grease (an additional 8 billion gallons). In theory, 1 hectacre can output 10,000 gallons of biodiesel per year with algae farming procedures currently in place, and a 100% energy efficiency.

This is still a far stretch from independence.

I may have the stages predicted wrong, because I believe the second stage to be thermal depolymerization. Oils and other fuels will be produced at an 85% efficiency, which is okay, and in the near future may compete with foreign oil. This technology will allow for fuel conversions from the current gas powered vehicles on the road. Natural gas internal combustion will actually become an industry. Waste treatment plants may become thermal depolymerization plants, or biodiesel plants. The latter being more energy efficient (560% as opposed to 85%)

The third and final stage will be manifest of the first two stages. The efficient usage of carbon-sink byproduct. Specifically, I believe that all of the glycerol product of biodiesel, and biomass CHO product for biodisel, and all other biomass waste will eventually be used in aqueous phase reforming. Eventually we'll figure out how to use AFR on fibrous biomass. That is, H2 will be a main byproduct and hydrogen fuel cell technology will have a purpose. The H2 made from biological sources will be cost competitive with foreign sources by 2025 by current projections. This is a 100% (or so) energy efficient process, but catalysts currently make this process uncometitive with petro H2 produced from natural gas.

I believe that the most efficient of these processes will eventually be "naturally seelected" based on efficiency. Thermal depolymerization will be a strong force from otherwise useless waste. Soon we will learn that H2 technology allows for the hydrocarbon energy to be used, AND we can sequester the CO2. This may be our future.

 

[moltenmetal]

From what I've seen, "thermal depolymerization" is pyrolysis with public relations ability, rather like a squirrel is basically a rat with a cute bushy tail! Energetically it's far better to merely burn waste biomass, food wastes etc. as a fuel at 100% thermal efficiency than it is to make a liquid fuel out of it at 85% efficiency and THEN burn it. Use biomass wastes to displace stationary fuel needs, and use more energy-efficient means to make your transporation fuels- that seems to me to make more sense. Better still, eliminate the stupid, wasteful "needs" for transporation fuels in the first place and you'll be farther along.

The first, essential and of course politically impossible step in all of this, though, is to tax stupid, wasteful consumption of fossil fuels to rebalance the economic equation in favour of alternatives.

Anyone who understands energy techology knows that there is no simple technological fix for our energy woes. It isn't coal, bio-derived fuels, nuclear, hydrogen or even fusion. Technological first aid of the bandaid variety, perhaps, but no true "fix" is available from any of these energy sources, as all of them have environmental, societal and economic consequences. Those who idealize the technological fix generally fall into two categories from what I've seen: politicians etc. with little technological background, and technological people who are touting their products as part of the "fix"...