Ending the addiction to oil
I got back home late– we had a girls varsity basketball game this evening. Our daughter pumped in 15 points in a losing effort. S0 — I flipped on the President’s speech. W. said it: America must end its addiction to oil.
Bush’s original energy plan mentioned developing alternative fuels, but further discussion? Nada. (But here’s the forward to that energy policy, from June 2001–admittedly pre-9/11. I can’t locate the entire document. There’s also this info sheet from 2001.)
There’s a post already up on the White House website, and the post tracks with the speech the President delivered:
The Advanced Energy Initiative Will Help Break America’s Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Energy. The best way to break America’s addiction to oil is through technology. The President set a goal of replacing more than 75 percent of oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources. The Advanced Energy Initiative will deliver a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas: Ø New Energy Sources For Homes And Businesses. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.
Ø New Energy Sources For Transportation. We must also change how we power our automobiles and move beyond a petroleum-based economy. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. The goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.
I hope so. Here’s a recent post on this blog regarding ethanol. Do we get an alternative fuels Manhattan Project?
The “terrorist surveillance program” is the correct way to phrase it.
So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America.
Will James Risen give the NY Times’ response?
Attacking Iran’s terror mullahs but appealing to the Iranian people is a nice diplomatic gesture. Here’s the press kit version:
The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions – and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.
Towards the end W. delivered a very nice line: “The destination of history is determined by human action.” I tell my students that– words are great and words matter, but action also matters. Implementation and execution of policy matter.
And: “Before history is written down in books it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well.”
Yes indeed.
UPDATE: I ‘m listening to Bill Kristol say the “squishes” won on Iran– that Iran was soft peddled. Disagree– the wording is talk soft but the American big stick is implicit. Iran knows American troops are on its borders– Afghani and Iraqi borders. The appeal to the Iranian people is a propos.
UPDATE 2: I agree that the world is “addicted to oil.” Also the issue is our need for energy and not oil per se. Bush is walking a line here. Oil –as commenter 1 notes– is a near-perfect source of energy. However, madmen like Hugo Chavez and genuinely “squishy” nations in OPEC have large deposits. Oil’s current position as a “fundamental resource” gives them power. See the speech in that context– focusing on oil sends a message to a number of bad guys (including Iran’s terror mullahs).
Yes but. Gasoline is the most best way to put energy in a portable engine. It delivers more energy per unit than any other fuel. It would be nice to have alternative fuel sources but they have to be in the same order of manitude in delivering energy as what we have today. It is something that can’t be waved away with a toss off line in a speech.
Comment by Bill Gross — 1/31/2006 @ 9:11 pm
Absolutely Bill, but the economics of the situation are paramount. Higher gas prices will make lower energy efficiency more attractive if it’s coupled with a sufficiently lower price. The 2025 mark is a clever ploy. At the current rate of price increase, hydrogen will be more economical long before that date.
Comment by datarat — 1/31/2006 @ 9:20 pm
The best way to wean oneself off of imported oil is to make it too expensive. Congress passes an import duty. It starts off as a small amount at first so not to wreck the economy, but over the years it becomes quite substantial. If there is a sudden jump in oil prices, we can reduce the duty to avoid oil shocks. If there is a sudden decrease like in the mid ’80s we can raise the duty so as to avoid putting people who have invested in oil shale out of business. The duty stops increasing when we are below 10 per cent importation. We, like good capitalists, let the market decide whether it’s alcohol, hydrogen, or shale. Nobody’s going to invest in a new technology if a giant oil find in Kazakhistan puts them out of business.
Comment by Rod Kendrick — 1/31/2006 @ 9:39 pm
[…] ng is not a strategy.” Read it all. The full text of the speech is here. Update: Auston Bay has analysis here. This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 3 […]
Pingback by titusonenine » Blog Archive » President Bush: U.S. Must Get Free of Mideast Oil — 1/31/2006 @ 9:42 pm
“We respect your right to … win your own freedom.” Does this mean that there will be no invasion?
Comment by Leo Comerford — 1/31/2006 @ 10:00 pm
First, it will take years to develop other technologies, so we stuck with gas for years and years. second, we need to increase ethanol and mandate ethanol and gas mix. Third, we need to develop nuclear power plants, it is the cheapest power on the market. This the short term list. Long term is small nuclear plants and hydrogen.
Comment by Harold Cutler — 1/31/2006 @ 10:09 pm
SOTU liveblogging (UPDATED) I won’t be liveblogging it (putting together a TV stand tonight) but I am going to be watching it. Michelle Malkin has a list of bloggers who will be liveblogging it so if you can’t get to a TV, check out those bloggers or visit CSPAN fo…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 1/31/2006 @ 10:10 pm
So letting the market decide now means “letting the market decide but not to decide oil”? Look, if the price of oil gets too high, because of loss of Iranian supplies or whatever, people will start using oil sands and oil shales. But if a big find in Kazakhstan comes along, they’ll stop. Why is that a problem?
Comment by Jeff Medcalf — 1/31/2006 @ 10:20 pm
re: “squishes” I think not. This is how Mr. Bush talked about oppressed Iraqis and their Baathists enslavers not all that long ago.
Comment by Ari Tai — 1/31/2006 @ 10:50 pm
I fear Bill Kristol is annoyed because his advice on the speech was not taken–otherwise I just don’t understand his take on the Iran passage. Wasn’t the last time that Bush spoke directly to the people of another nation the people of Iraq in 2004?
Comment by Academic Elephant — 1/31/2006 @ 10:55 pm
I believe that conservation should be our first, second and third goals. The cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use. I’m not sure myself what our energy future should be, but I think we’ll have a better shot at getting it right if we understand our energy present first. One way to grab some energy knowledge and be entertained at the same time is to take a look at a techno-thriller novel called “Rad Decision” that is available at no cost to readers. This book, written by a longtime nuclear engineer (me), explores the real world of nuclear power as well as other electrical sources. Readers seem to like it, judging from comments on the website’s homepage: http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.
Comment by James Aach — 1/31/2006 @ 11:31 pm
Hmmmm. “The best way to wean oneself off of imported oil is to make it too expensive.” Ok. You start first. Next time you have to fill up at the gas station, give the guy a $50 tip. Now do this every single time for the rest of your life. Come back in twenty years and let me know how it all worked out.
Comment by ed — 1/31/2006 @ 11:35 pm
As an Iranian living in US, I agree that Bush’s speech was designed to sound soft …he did a great job by separating Mullahs and citizens of Iran. Anytime you use threatening language with Iran, you leave no choice for citizens but to unit them with regime. Much better speech than “axis of evil”, and it’s funny to see how some liberal groups are accusing Bush being too soft on Iran. Now that Bush is using diplomacy they want him to use more force!!! It’s funny with these American liberals.
Comment by freida — 1/31/2006 @ 11:48 pm
We have a similar tax policy here is Australia that keeps the market pressure on the price of gasoline. We also have natural gas in abundance so we can convert to LPG and pay (by government regulation) half the price for it. Remember that LPG has less energy per gallon so you don’t get quite as good mileage. The conversion costs about US$1200-1500 so you have to drive quite a lot to pay for it. I’ve got a an old Mazda 323 that I bought already on LPG that costs me $12-18 a week to run. But that’s here, not there. Its keeping the price of gasoline up when the world price drops that keeps things like my gas conversion worth it. And just a bit more importantly I agree such a policy would keep shale oil investors and similar secure. I think large finds are definitely on the cards. I’m not a believer that we have reached peak oil, there is just too much area where we know oil exists but are not sure how much. Never mind what we don’t know we don’t know about.
Comment by lgude — 1/31/2006 @ 11:56 pm
Thermal depolymerization is already almost competitive and much more efficient than ethanol. All it needs to be competitive are more severe waste disposal regulations. We may be “addicted to oil,” but we don’t get most of our oil from the Gulf. The problem is the rest of the world is addicted to oil and more vulnerable to economic blackmail by Iran or Saudi Arabia than we are. In a global economy, we have to care whether everyone else is addicted. What I like about TDP is that it uses off-the-shelf technology (it’s basically a refinery) and eats everything but radioactive waste. You could put one of these plants in the middle of Africa and run it on its own steam and power it with cow dung, old computers, or old tires, and you’d get oil, sterile water, and various metals. All you’d need to run it is a few people with engineering degrees. The other nice thing about TDP is that you don’t need to upend the entire energy infrastructure. It makes oil and water out of anything carbon-based. No need to retrofit everything for fuelcells or whatever. Developing countries can’t afford that. They have people running 30 year old cars and trucks, they aren’t going to trade them all in for fancy hybrid vehicles.
Comment by Yehudit — 2/1/2006 @ 12:43 am
Rod Kendrick — almost exactly correct principle. Higher gas taxes, that keep going up, but can be delayed or temporarily reversed to avoid an excessive jump. Economically better if not just on imports, on all consumption — perhaps politically more acceptable if just on imports. Using some recent $60/ bbl as a “target” guide, with an effective target increasing by $1 / quarter until we reach that 10% import goal (arbitrary goal; some $100/ bbl?).
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 2/1/2006 @ 2:39 am
It’s certainly good news to see some emphasis on energy policy in the SOU 2006. Though I confess I’m wondering: what results did the Bush 2001 energy program produce? At the end of the White House press release on SOU 2006 there’s a couple of paragraphs on how the “Advanced Energy Initiative Will Build On The Progress Made Since 2001:”
The press release states one achievement, which may well be true - I need to a bit of research to verify accuracy: blockquote> Through the President’s program, the cost of a hydrogen fuel cell has been cut by more than 50% in just four years. The initiative on advanced battery research for hybrids looks promising. But note how tiny the investment (FY2007 $30 million) is relative to the $289 million for the “The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative”. Is this big investment in promoting hydrogen for transportation a thermodynamic bust? See Carrying the Energy Future on the questionable economics of hydrogen vs. hybrid vehicles (especially with the “new battery technology”):
Are there better sources on the hydrogen economics? On next generation battery efficiency?
Comment by Steve D. — 2/1/2006 @ 3:01 am
From http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/, I found this: How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline. Forever! January 24, 2006 (FORTUNE Magazine) -
Comment by Bill Woods — 2/1/2006 @ 4:25 am
[…] s Posted By: Kevin Connors @ 0525 on 2006-02-01 On his blog, Austin Bay, a commentator I generally revear, celebrates President Bush’s decrial of AmericaR […]
Pingback by The Daily Brief: A Military Blog For All The World To See And Read » Austin Bay Has His Head Up His Ass — 2/1/2006 @ 5:24 am
We have - at a minimum - a hundred of billion barrels of oil shale in Colorado alone. Probably more elsewhere in the United States. Why are we not pursuing this technology, which Shell reportedly has a viable process for at $30 a barrel? Hydrogen, ethanol, ANWR, and offshore drilling are all really sideshows. The key to taking down OPEC is the shale in Colorado, and the oil sands in Alberta.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 2/1/2006 @ 8:22 am
Korrekt Inglish: it’s FOREWORD not FORWARD.
Comment by John Parker — 2/1/2006 @ 8:29 am
I find it instructive to see how readily people ‘discover’ solutions to the problem d’jour that amount to mandating higher taxes as a form of social control. Gee, just what might we do with all that money if the plebes actually persist in the taxed activity? The minions of the energy industry aren’t stupid. If they could see a way to make a buck on ethanol, solar power satellites, seabed methane deposits (besides harvesting government handouts) they’d be bloody well doing so.
Comment by JSAllison — 2/1/2006 @ 9:16 am
IF it’s truly an addiction, is not the solution then to quit cold turkey, instead of trying to wean oneself off it?
Comment by John — 2/1/2006 @ 9:38 am
Getting off our crack-like addiction to mid-East oil would be a Good Thing. http://blog.eronj.com/2006/02/01/state-of-the-union/
Comment by Ron K. Jeffries — 2/1/2006 @ 9:58 am
There is only one problem with agri based fuel alternatives, but it’s a big one: Drought! The most important and troubling line in the whole speech, “We respect your right to … win your own freedom.†Was this meant to encourage the Oppressed Iranian masses, the theocratic mullahs, or the DNC?
Comment by Esbiem — 2/1/2006 @ 10:04 am
Comparisons to the Manhattan Project are greatly overused — almost as much, I dare say, as comparisons to Hitler. The Manhattan Project was extraordinary not just because of the sums of money the government spent on it, but also because of the class of talent that was assembled to work on it — which could not have been done without a national mobilization. A fairly large fraction of the world’s best mathematicians, physicists, and chemists were diverted from their normal pursuits for 3 years. Any time I hear people compare a research project to the Manhattan Project, I’m tempted to ask, “and how many current and future Nobel Prize winners work for you?” If the answer falls below 10, you don’t have a Manhattan Project-like research endeavour, any more than you have a realistic Hitler comparison without concentration camps.
Comment by Mycroft — 2/1/2006 @ 10:17 am
A reminded that in 1942, nuclear fission and its tremendous energy release had been know to science only 5 years. It had not been completely understood let alone exploited. Energy is at heart a physics play. What new energy source has been discovered since fission? Answer - none. What is on the horizon? Answer: Nothing. Instead of some hokey “Manhattan Project” talk, we need to buckle down and make a decision to expand the use of the one near-infinite energy source we know about - nuclear fission of uranium and thorium.
Comment by Whitehall — 2/1/2006 @ 5:09 pm
Sorry, folks, most of you are living in the past. “The idea that public investment in new technologies will somehow solve the problem with no inconvenience to our coddled masses is the perfect example of how democratic societies are prone to fatuous delusions.” A broad-based tax on energy is NOT “social engineering,” it is, rather, the only rational way to correct distortions in the global market, allowing people to choose how to save energy, without arbitrary regulations and fickle tax credits. See my The State of the Union, 2006 blog post.
Comment by Andrew — 2/1/2006 @ 8:07 pm
Yes, it is social engineering. You’re imposing an artificial cost in order to limit an activity which, by the way, would be creating a distortion in said global market.
Comment by JSAllison — 2/2/2006 @ 10:05 am
SOTU stuff The traditional end of the speech laundry list was not promising, as Larry Kudlow reminds us: Mr. Bush’s energy plan for hydrogen and hybrid batteries, or ethanol from woodchips, stalks or switch grass is, well, you know, very Carteresque. But if m
Trackback by Virtual Fret Noise — 2/2/2006 @ 11:18 am
(2nd attempt to post.) I detest social engineering, which means setting arbitrary targets (like Bush did) and forcing people to behave a certain way. Broad-based taxes, in contrast, aim to create incentives to offset existing market distortions, NOT “limit an activity.” Read the “allowing people to choose” part again. I have no problem with people who drive gas-guzzlers, as long as they are willing pay for what the gasoline really costs to produce and transport, i.e., including the military cost of stabilizing oil-producing regions of the world. Like it or not, the present global market is severely distorted by the “clash of civilizations” — terrorism AND our struggle against it. Truly free markets can only function within the confines an an established legal order in which thieves are routinely arrested, punished, and/or deterred. Contrary to the dreams of globalists, those conditions do not obtain outside the confines of a sovereign state. Trade among nations is always contingent upon effective international regimes (GATT, WTO, NAFTA, etc.) and/or the willingness of nations that favor trade (once U.K., now U.S.A.) to exert military force to keep the sea lanes open. It’s a heavy burden, and it does no good to conceal the cost.
Comment by Andrew — 2/2/2006 @ 2:07 pm