Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Summary
Repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. They were ill conceived originally. They involve unnecessary government subsidies, which we cannot afford, and contain restrictions on private business development.
Detail
Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) in 2005. It included a basket of energy issues. For the present, we wish to consider only ethanol as a replacement for gasoline in motor vehicles and its unnecessary subsidization.
EpAct defined two types of ethanol. Ethanol derived from cellulose is known as "Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol".
Ethanol derived from cellulose and ethanol derived from corn are collectively known as "Renewable Fuels". Notice that "Renewable Fuels" includes both cellulosic and corn derived ethanol, while "Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol" is a single entity. The amount of ethanol, from both sources, mandated for use in 2022 was based on a formula. No quantity was considered for the separate cellulosic ethanol.
Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in 2007. The stated purpose of the act was to move the US toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
EISA requires that the total amount of Renewable Fuels added to gasoline must increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of that total, 21 billion gallons must be cellulosic ethanol. Another source specifies 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, but this is not a significant difference is context. A side issue is that the EPA was given the responsibility to implement the laws, and it has translated the requirements as a Renewable Fuel Standard. However, the numbers are the same.
The National Research Council has recently investigated the progress of cellulosic ethanol production and has concluded that there is no way the requirement of EISA can be met by normal development procedures.
This leaves two options. Change the law or throw billions of dollars of government money into development, which would hopefully increase production of cellulosic ethanol to the specified level. It is certain that private capital would not consider this a viable investment.
The key point is that we don't need ethanol as an automotive fuel. Since the two laws were passed, we have significantly increased our petroleum reserves and private industry is available to tap it. If the Dept of Energy will allow drilling permits. Gasoline from petroleum is always cheaper than ethanol from any source, and we need to scrap all considerations of ethanol use as a major constituent of motor fuel.
The answer to the cellulosic ethanol production dilemma is obvious. Repeal EPAct and EISA and simultaneously remove restrictions on crude oil production, so that private industry can get on with its job of providing the public with cheap automotive fuel.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Shut Down the US Department of Energy
The October 3 issue of Chemical & Engineering News has an article by Jeff Johnson entitled, "DOE Plans Shift in R&D Direction".
The US Department of Energy has an annual budget of $26 billion. My comment is that the Department of Energy has accomplished nothing with its previous annual budgets and the Department of Energy should be disbanded.
However, looking at the details of Jeff Johnson's article, the present annual budget for research at the Department of Energy is $3 billion. About 50% is for development of clean electricity sources, 19% for improving building and industrial efficiency, 5% for improving the electric grid, and 26% for supporting transportation. Note that the $3 billion does nothing to actually improve these items. The expenditure is only for studies.
Obama has now appointed a select committee of "scientists", which recommends that the research budget should be increased from the present $3 billion, which is a little over 10% of the total DOE budget to 20%. Obama's "scientific" committee recommends more attention (money) to improve vehicle efficiency, electrification of automobiles, deployment of alternative fuels, enhanced building and industrial efficiency, modernization of the electrical grid, and increased deployment of clean energy sources.
This committee is obviously following the Obama party line of ignoring our great potential for continued and increased use of gas and oil, while it fritters away our tax assets on "pie in the sky studies" followed by real losses, such as Solyndra and a larger one yet to come.
My recommendation is to eliminate the Department of Energy, which will eliminate not only its $3-6 billion "studies" budget but also the larger $30 billion annual expenditure of the whole agency. I have written separately on how this can be done.
The US Department of Energy has an annual budget of $26 billion. My comment is that the Department of Energy has accomplished nothing with its previous annual budgets and the Department of Energy should be disbanded.
However, looking at the details of Jeff Johnson's article, the present annual budget for research at the Department of Energy is $3 billion. About 50% is for development of clean electricity sources, 19% for improving building and industrial efficiency, 5% for improving the electric grid, and 26% for supporting transportation. Note that the $3 billion does nothing to actually improve these items. The expenditure is only for studies.
Obama has now appointed a select committee of "scientists", which recommends that the research budget should be increased from the present $3 billion, which is a little over 10% of the total DOE budget to 20%. Obama's "scientific" committee recommends more attention (money) to improve vehicle efficiency, electrification of automobiles, deployment of alternative fuels, enhanced building and industrial efficiency, modernization of the electrical grid, and increased deployment of clean energy sources.
This committee is obviously following the Obama party line of ignoring our great potential for continued and increased use of gas and oil, while it fritters away our tax assets on "pie in the sky studies" followed by real losses, such as Solyndra and a larger one yet to come.
My recommendation is to eliminate the Department of Energy, which will eliminate not only its $3-6 billion "studies" budget but also the larger $30 billion annual expenditure of the whole agency. I have written separately on how this can be done.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
House Committee Hearings on Continuance of the Department of Energy
Open E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I would like you to set up House Committee hearings concerning continuance of the Department of Energy.
Start with the fact that the present annual budget of the DOE is $27 billion. $11 billion each go to Nuclear Security and Energy & Environment. The other $5 billion goes mostly to "Science".
Congress established the DOE in 1977. It was primarily based on the oil crisis of 1973 from the Arab oil embargo. The intent of the DOE was to establish an energy plan, which would make the US less vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries.
The questions that the Committee should now be asking Sec. Chu are:
1. Is our economy now less vulnerable to variable supply from the Arab countries than it was 34 years ago?
2. If it is, what part did the DOE play in the change? Did the improved drilling technology of private companies have a more significant effect? Did and does the DOE help those private companies in any way? If so, how?
3. If our economy is still significantly vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries, what is the DOE now doing about it?
4. The average DOE budget was $20 billion per year over the past 34 years, which totals $680 billion. What did the American public get for its $680 billion?
I'm sure there are other questions that the Committee will develop. Chu will try to defend his position by the use of gobbledygook, meaning pie-in-the-sky predictions of the great things yet to come.
The fact remains that we should be closing down the Department of Energy as a basic money waster. It has accomplished nothing significant in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. I believe we are now less dependent on Arab oil than we were in 1973, but that is the result of positive action on the part of private drilling companies, in spite of DOE regulations to minimize that production particularly through permit control. I will only mention the Splendora and other solar energy fiascos.
We obviously need to maintain Nuclear Security. That responsibility should be transferred to the Department of Defense, where it belonged in the first place. The DOD can the have the responsibility to see that the program is being operated efficiently.
Will we eventually run out of gas and oil? Obviously we will, but exploration even with DOE interferences has continued to increase our reserves. Private industry has all the incentives it needs to supply energy, and we can depend on it to utilize all technology necessary for continued supply in one form or another.
Randy,
I would like you to set up House Committee hearings concerning continuance of the Department of Energy.
Start with the fact that the present annual budget of the DOE is $27 billion. $11 billion each go to Nuclear Security and Energy & Environment. The other $5 billion goes mostly to "Science".
Congress established the DOE in 1977. It was primarily based on the oil crisis of 1973 from the Arab oil embargo. The intent of the DOE was to establish an energy plan, which would make the US less vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries.
The questions that the Committee should now be asking Sec. Chu are:
1. Is our economy now less vulnerable to variable supply from the Arab countries than it was 34 years ago?
2. If it is, what part did the DOE play in the change? Did the improved drilling technology of private companies have a more significant effect? Did and does the DOE help those private companies in any way? If so, how?
3. If our economy is still significantly vulnerable to variable oil supply from Arab countries, what is the DOE now doing about it?
4. The average DOE budget was $20 billion per year over the past 34 years, which totals $680 billion. What did the American public get for its $680 billion?
I'm sure there are other questions that the Committee will develop. Chu will try to defend his position by the use of gobbledygook, meaning pie-in-the-sky predictions of the great things yet to come.
The fact remains that we should be closing down the Department of Energy as a basic money waster. It has accomplished nothing significant in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. I believe we are now less dependent on Arab oil than we were in 1973, but that is the result of positive action on the part of private drilling companies, in spite of DOE regulations to minimize that production particularly through permit control. I will only mention the Splendora and other solar energy fiascos.
We obviously need to maintain Nuclear Security. That responsibility should be transferred to the Department of Defense, where it belonged in the first place. The DOD can the have the responsibility to see that the program is being operated efficiently.
Will we eventually run out of gas and oil? Obviously we will, but exploration even with DOE interferences has continued to increase our reserves. Private industry has all the incentives it needs to supply energy, and we can depend on it to utilize all technology necessary for continued supply in one form or another.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Fire DOE Sec. Chu
EIN News says, "Chu Takes Responsibility for a Loan Deal That Put More Taxpayer Money at Risk in Solyndra Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency. (washingtonpost.com)".
I'm amazed that anybody in the Obama administration will take responsibility for anything.
Now that Chu has taken this step, let's build on it. This latest half billion dollar mistake is on top of all of the other errors he has committed as head of the Department of Energy. Fire him!
We plan to shut down the whole department anyhow. It has contributed materially to our 4 1/2 trillion dollar debt and every day continues to make it worse.
I'm amazed that anybody in the Obama administration will take responsibility for anything.
Now that Chu has taken this step, let's build on it. This latest half billion dollar mistake is on top of all of the other errors he has committed as head of the Department of Energy. Fire him!
We plan to shut down the whole department anyhow. It has contributed materially to our 4 1/2 trillion dollar debt and every day continues to make it worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
