Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Department of Energy (DOE) Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby pup55 » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 09:00:53

Hon. Samuel W Bodman
Secretary of Energy
Washington DC

Hello again, Sam:

Thanks for your recent comments in the NYT. It is wonderful that you take time out of your busy schedule to defend our national energy policy.

I hope you don't mind if I point out a couple of things:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'the president signed into law increases in fuel efficiency standards')

The president resisted increasing the CAFE standards tooth and nail for 7 years, before finally capitulating this year, and not until the standards were watered down enough. The standards call for an increase in efficiency to 35 mpg by 2020, which is less than Europe and China are right now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')we’ve spent more than $12 billion to advance alternative energy sources including solar, wind, biofuels and nuclear power.


The crazy little country of Germany, with the same land area as Ohio, spent $5B on just wind power alone. Meanwhile you spend $1B about every four days, keeping your army in Iraq, trying to capture as much fossil fuel supply as you can. You can tell where your priorities are, as we have said earlier.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he United States has the fastest growing wind power capacity in the world, and installed photovoltaic capacity has grown 30 percent a year,


Sam, you are an MIT engineering professor, and you are smart enough not to play these games, and should know that we are smart enough not to fall for them. Growing from "practically zero" to "30% more than practically zero" is pretty easy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
we lead the world in overall biofuels production')

That's right. We took 25% of our corn crop last year, and turned it into the equivalent of 17 days worth of gasoline, sending food prices through the roof, and causing spot shortages of certain crops. If you want to claim credit for this, you may.

I don't blame you for what is going on. You are just out doing an interesting job for a few years before you retire, so you don't mind working with your political people to put out a little disinformation like this once in awhile. Unfortunately, Obama is not going to be any better for us. He never mentions the one fact that is crystal clear in all of this: Somebody is not going to be able to drive. Until you, and him, and everybody else figures this out, we are just nibbling at the margins of the problem.

Also, we will also have our young people in Iraq for as long as it takes to figure this out.

Anyway, Sam, take care, and be sure to write once in awhile. We always enjoy your entertaining letters, and hope you will join us regularly when you are out of office.

Sincerely,

pup55
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby Ghog » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 10:10:21

Great 'rebuttals' Pup!!

I still love the political commercials stating 'they won't let us drill here at home'. :lol:

Using less energy or destroying US lands to find more. Which would be MORE effective at reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Hmmmmm.
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby pup55 » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 10:40:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')sing less energy


I listen carefully to a lot of this energy talk, as we PO.com viewers all do, and it never ceases to amaze me how they tiptoe around the central problem of the US transportation system.

They all are looking for ways to do hybrids, or do better efficiency, or plug in or whatever, but there is zero talk, at the high level, of taking one person out from behind the steering wheel of one car.

Obama Energy Policy

McCain's Lexington Project

If I missed it, please point it out, but in either of these two websites there is no mention whatsoever of getting people out of their cars.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby Ghog » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 10:51:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')sing less energy


If I missed it, please point it out, but in either of these two websites there is no mention whatsoever of getting people out of their cars.


As far as I can tell, you've missed nothing. They want us to continue to drive and consume. They just want us to do it more efficiently.

It's taken them a long time to get the stay-at-home spouse OUT of the house. In return we received a second full-time worker receiving $10/hr, another car payment, crap family values and more taxes paid. The American Dream!!
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania
Top

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby countrymomma » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 18:07:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s far as I can tell, you've missed nothing. They want us to continue to drive and consume. They just want us to do it more efficiently.


Exactly... And in 3-5 years (if) when "super efficient" vehicles are available, who is going to have the cash to buy them? The very same people who, at this moment, can not tell you the price of a gallon of gas. They don't have to pay attention to it, because their wallet is so fat they can't tell the difference.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's taken them a long time to get the stay-at-home spouse OUT of the house. In return we received a second full-time worker receiving $10/hr, another car payment, crap family values and more taxes paid. The American Dream!!


Again, I find your comment right on the money.

Having a stay at home spouse/parent is now considered a luxury. That is crazy! Two parents must work full time to pay someone else to raise a family & pay for the two vehicles to get them to the jobs, and double the car insurance, and better hope that between the two employers the medical coverage can cover all the gaps.

I count myself very lucky to be able to be at home to raise my kids, tend the garden & keep our house... But that "luck" takes quite a bit of corner cutting.

Our neighbors wonder why we don't go on 3 or 4 vacations a year like they do. Meanwhile we wonder why they are paying so much for vacations on top of daycare, after school sitters & trips to the pediatrician monthly because of another bug going around at the preschool.

:-x Can you tell this is a hot button for me?

So, sure Sammy - spend a bit of our tax money to figure out how to keep us on the road, spending money... Hope you can figure out how the average working man (oops.... person) is going to be able to afford it after they've poured every penny they have into gas/heating/insurance/sky high food costs/etc/etc...

Anyone know what a hybrid vehicle is going for these days? I can't seem to find them in the used car section...
Country Momma
User avatar
countrymomma
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat 07 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Midwest
Top

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby Twilight » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 19:19:58

Hey Mr. Bodman. I am not a US citizen, and I do not own a car, I just hire one for a day when I need to. Recently I drove an MPV that got me 44mpg on the open road fully loaded. It had an ordinary internal combustion engine. It was a Ford. And it is not available in the US. Whatever your energy policy is, you rely on others to implement it. You need to ask whose side they are on.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00

Re: U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

Unread postby joe1347 » Sun 27 Jul 2008, 20:35:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '[')b]U.S. Energy Policy, as the Energy Secretary Sees It

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our March 25 editorial “Pain at the Pump and Beyond” pointed to the strain that high energy prices are putting on America’s economy, families and businesses. As energy secretary, I agree that our nation is “far too dependent on oil.” We absolutely must lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, harness the power of clean energy, and increase our energy efficiency.

And so I strongly disagree with your statement that the Bush administration’s energy strategy is “focused on one thing: getting more oil.” At best, this suggestion demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the efforts under way across our nation.

Since the start of this administration, the federal government has spent more than $12 billion to research, develop and promote alternative energy sources. Last year alone, the Energy Department announced more than $1 billion to spur the growth of a robust, sustainable biofuels industry — with a focus on cellulosic ethanol. We also continue to make critical investments in solar and wind power, hydrogen fuel cells, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, cutting-edge clean coal plants and advanced nuclear power technologies. And we’re already seeing results — in our national laboratories and, more important, out in the marketplace.

This work has been under way for years and must continue at a rapid pace. After all, our energy challenges have been decades in the making and will not be solved overnight.

Our national strategy is not a reaction to high oil prices. It’s a comprehensive policy that seeks to address two of the most fundamental challenges we face: improving our energy security and combating global climate change. Today’s high energy prices only underscore the urgency of these efforts.

Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary of Energy
Washington, March 26, 2008


nytimes


He's lying of course. Spending billions on alternative energy. I don't think so. Here's a link to all of the upcoming renewable energy U.S. Government contacts. Not much, is there? A few million maybe. Maybe the Secretary didn't do so well in Math and simply doesn't know the difference between a Billiion and a Million. Just an 'honest' mistake.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/business.html

Well, maybe I'm wrong and the Government is hiring lots of high powered scientist and engineering talent to help spend those billions for renewable energy. Let's check out the open positions at the National Renewable Energy Lab. Oh, must be a mistake. There doesn't seem to be many renewable energy jobs open either. Just a couple

http://www.nrel.gov/employment/job_openings.html

Well at least there's private enterprise, certainly the US Government would do everything in it's power to encourage and expand privately funded renewable energy projects.

US Freezes Solar Energy Projects

Hmmm. I guess privately funding alternatively energy projects are out also.

So I wonder where is the Billions in energy spending is going?
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
User avatar
joe1347
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby skiptamali » Mon 06 Oct 2008, 23:39:38

So here's an interesting bit of news. Ford will get a $10 million grant from the U.S. DOE to develop plug-in hybrids. This will cover approximately half the cost of the project. The plan is to bring the PHEV closer to commercialization by working out some of the early quirks and setbacks.

This looks like a solid partnership between the government and private automakers. Why Ford though? Why only Ford? How far can $20M get them in three years?

I wonder if granting money to Ford alone, and not pushing collaboration with other (American) automakers, is the smartest thing to do.
User avatar
skiptamali
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri 09 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby mos6507 » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 01:49:12

What a joke. This is not a pie-in-the-sky research project anymore. It's already becoming a reality. In 3 years the Volt, Vue (technically a plugin but a pretty weak-ass one), Fisker Karma, and Aptera plugins will already be on the road.
mos6507
 

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby strider3700 » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 04:10:19

Ford lost 8.7 billion in it's second quarter. Compared to that 10 million is laughable
shame on us, doomed from the start
god have mercy on our dirty little hearts
strider3700
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby IslandCrow » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 04:17:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skiptamali', 'g')rant from the U.S. DOE to develop plug-in hybrids.


This could be good news for the plug-in industry. If the military sees it as an advantage for them then it the whole idea might get to see the light of day before we are too far down the back slope of PO.

It is probably also bad news, given that ability of the military to overpay for what it gets.
We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.
User avatar
IslandCrow
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon 12 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Finland
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby nocar » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 07:10:00

I am not at all enthusiastic over plug-in cars.
Biofuel - grain prices go up and carless people have to pay more for food in order for car-owners to enjoy their car-driving habit
Plug-in cars - electricity prices go up and carless people have to pay more for their power in order for car-owners to enjoy their car-driving habit. Is that really fair?
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby mos6507 » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 10:34:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nocar', 'P')lug-in cars - electricity prices go up and carless people have to pay more for their power in order for car-owners to enjoy their car-driving habit

Think big picture. Given how dependent we are on oil for more than just gasoline, freeing up that oil through electrifying transportation would clearly be a net gain for everyone.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 11:05:51

Building electrical light rail mass transit systems right now, like they have in Europe right now, would make a lot more sense then spending another decade trying to create the perfect electric car.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby RSFB » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 11:12:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')uilding electrical light rail mass transit systems, like they have in Europe right now, would a lot more sense then spending billions trying to create the perfect electric car.

If electrical light rail is built, the terrorists have already won.
User avatar
RSFB
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun 03 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby dinopello » Tue 07 Oct 2008, 11:17:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')uilding electrical light rail mass transit systems, like they have in Europe right now, would a lot more sense then spending billions trying to create the perfect electric car.


Yay, we agree on something !

The thing with rail is that it is a node-based transportation system. Each node or train stop needs to be compact and walkable so that the people getting off at the stop have a way to get to their ultimate destination. A comprehensive energy and/or transportation policy would encourage or at least allow the (re)building of compact, walkable communities. These kind of places have been in demand and command a premium in price wherever they exist except that building them is next to illegal in most places due to various regulations that either make it impossible or extremely expensive - including parking requirements, ADA codes etc.

The best thing I can say about electric cars is that by necessity they will be smaller so maybe they will take up less space for storage and the communities can be made more compact and walkable.

---
Disclaimer: The statement above may contain forward-looking statements that implicitly make certain assumptions that may or may not be accurate. For example, it is likely that any statements above, presume that a total, unrecoverable economic and social collapse leading to a demise of civilization as we know it does not occur in the next decade.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby nocar » Wed 08 Oct 2008, 04:52:17

Mos6507 wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hink big picture. Given how dependent we are on oil for more than just gasoline, freeing up that oil through electrifying transportation would clearly be a net gain for everyone.


I am thinking big picture. Think how dependent we are on electricity for just about everything in modern life. I rather take higher prices on plastics, synthetic materials and transported goods than higher prices on electricity. And if things like biocides and fertilizers made from oil get more expensive, organic food production will get more competetive, with a healthier environment as a result.

Food will get more expensive in any case. The food chain depends a lot on refrigeration run by electricity, not just on tractors needing oil.

PO sure has put the car traffic system in direct competition with other human needs, unlike in the plentiful oil situation where it had an energy source more or less outside other needs.

The best solution is less car traffic All that artificial respiration by governments all around the world supporting their national car industries will just make things worse. My Swedish tax money go the same way, which makes me mad. I would much rather support lazy people on welfare, if I had a choice.

nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby species8742 » Wed 08 Oct 2008, 06:10:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nocar', 'P')lug-in cars - electricity prices go up and carless people have to pay more for their power in order for car-owners to enjoy their car-driving habit
Think big picture. Given how dependent we are on oil for more than just gasoline, freeing up that oil through electrifying transportation would clearly be a net gain for everyone.

Moss please read lips. You CANNOT free u "ALL THAT OIL" we dont have the energy to do it.

all it will do is raise electric prices. we use 15 terrawatt hours of power electric in the world. Know how many barrels of oil that is? Not very many

there is no way we can even come close to replaceing our oil needs with electiricity, and as electricity is used, prices increase. If one out of twelve families buy an electric car, we will DOUBLE our electric consumption and the grid cant supply our needs.
User avatar
species8742
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue 07 Oct 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby RSFB » Wed 08 Oct 2008, 09:58:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('species8742', 'I')f one out of twelve families buy an electric car, we will DOUBLE our electric consumption and the grid cant supply our needs.

It will happen gradually, not overnight. Of course the grid will have to be updated and more power stations will have to be built incrementally.
There's a lot of electricity being wasted which people will save if prices increase a lot.
User avatar
RSFB
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun 03 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Ford Gets $10 Million from US DOE

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 08 Oct 2008, 11:23:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('species8742', 't')here is no way we can even come close to replaceing our oil needs with electiricity, and as electricity is used, prices increase. If one out of twelve families buy an electric car, we will DOUBLE our electric consumption and the grid cant supply our needs.

Electricity is the universal energy currency. That's where we're headed in the end whether you like it or not. If the grid can't handle it, put a solar array on your roof or build a windmill. Can't afford it? Tough luck. That's powerdown for you.
mos6507
 
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

cron