Special Microwave Turns Plastic into Oil!

You heard it here first, folks!

Global Resources Corporation has developed a specialized microwave that directs energy at plastics and releases the hydrocarbons. The result? Waste plastics are transformed into diesel oil, combustible gas, carbon, and whatever else is in the original plastic!

As we know, plastics are made from oil. Some, however, are extremely energy-intensive and expensive to recycle into new plastics. GRC's process can recycle essentially anything which contains hydrocarbons, including those pesky worn-out tires that burn so freely in junkyards across the nation!

I'm all for reducing and reusing first, and buying more durable products which we need not recycle so quickly; however, a process like this can provide incentive for people to mine our junkyards for oil resources, stretching the life of in-earth oil reserves AND the capacity of our landfills.

Read more at http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12141-giant-microwave-turns-plastic-back-to-oil.html

Gas Station Owner Finds Ultimate Marketing Ploy

In a brilliant move to draw business to his station, Harvey Pollack, owner of Towne Mobil Market in Mequon, Wisconsin shut off his pumps for one day to "protest high gas prices". This move, costing him a mere $1500 for the full day, has brought him national free coverage lasting several days.

Winner of the coveted "Energy Idiot of the Week" title, Maria McClory, gives her performance in the CNN article linked above:

Maria McClory, 38, drove 10 miles out of her way to buy a diet soda from Pollack's station after seeing local television coverage of the protest.

"I just wanted to support them and thank them for making a statement," said McClory, who drives about 100 miles a day for work in her sport utility vehicle.

This dim bulb (incandescent, I'd wager) drove an extra ten miles to buy a soda, in her gas-hog SUV, which she "drives for work". I wonder, is she transporting half a dozen workers in that SUV? Or just her overladen handbag?

Perhaps she'd have made a stronger statement by ditching the SUV for something a bit more efficient, eh? Or not driving ten miles for a soda!

Kudos to the unnamed CNN reporter who made sure we all knew that Ms. McClory likes to complain about gas prices while simultaneously using as much as possible . . . without this information, she'd not have been able to win her title.

Self-Degrading GE Corn? No self-esteem issues here.

Corn's had a tough row to hoe lately. One of the world's leading food crops for generations, it's rapidly being diverted into ethanol production. The simple sugars in the kernels can be fermented into ethanol much faster than the cellulose in the stalks. With a new, self-degrading genetically-engineered corn plant, that's all about to change.

According to this LiveScience article, Michigan State University genetic engineers have developed a strain of corn which develops its own cellulase, an enzyme needed to break down cellulose into simple sugars. The plant sequesters the cellulase until the stalk is crushed and heated.

Cornstalks which can produce their own cellulase means the corn grain can continue to enter the food chain, while the stalks -- usually waste material -- become feedstock (feedstalk?) for the fuel chain.

No word yet on a timetable for further testing and availability of this product.

The wise engineers, sensitive to biodiversity concerns (and patent management), are making a point of ensuring that the cellulase-production genes cannot be passed through simple reproduction.

Sheryl Crow Solves Global Warming Problem!!

That's right, folks. Sheryl Crow has come up with a brilliant, two-part plan to curb global warming. The hours of sitting on the "Biodiesel Bus" touring the country to raise awareness have given her plenty of time to come up with a plan.

Not only is it simple in execution, but it's so very easy for each of us to do on our own, with only minimal government intrusion into our personal lives!

The first step of her ingenious plan:

"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," she wrote on her Biodiesel Bus Blog.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting," she suggested.

"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required," she wrote.

That's right, folks. A simple ban on overuse of toilet paper, along with the placement of single-sheet toilet paper dispensers in every public and private restroom in the nation, complete with monitoring to determine whether someone is overwiping, is the first part of Crow's Global Warming Prevention Plan.

Never mind the volume of energy required to construct all those monitoring dispensers and place them in hundreds of millions of bathrooms. Never mind that toilet paper becomes sewage sludge, used as fertilizer. This will curb global warming, by . . . um . . . well, it just WILL!

I suggest we all carry about a plastic scraper, for use prior to the use of our single sheet of toilet paper. Yes, yes, I know. Energy invested in 300 million scrapers . . . perhaps we can share?

Lest you lose faith in Crow, she has the second part of her Plan in place already. In this, she works out her renowned fashion designer chops!

Crow also commented that paper serviettes "represent the height of wastefulness" and that she'd designed a "dining sleeve" that's detachable and can be replaced with another 'dining sleeve' once you've used it to wipe your mouth.

That's right. Banning paper napkins, which do end up in landfills, is the second half of Crow's scheme. Instead, each of us will cart about multiple extra shirtsleeves, and wipe our mouths and clean up spills with our clothing! Then, of course, after a date, we can just toss those extra sleeves into our Sleeve Carrying Bag, and put on new ones.

I believe that this "dining sleeve" falls short, however. We could go so much farther.

I propose we add a "snot sleeve" as well, and ban tissues. Yes, since folks like Crow are accustomed to places which only have paper napkins, and wiping their mouths upon their sleeves, they should be quite happy to do the same with their noses!

In fact, we can trace global warming back to Napoleon, who added buttons to the sleeves of his soldiers' uniforms to stop their nose-wiping. Ever since, waste and global temperatures have increased steadily. See the connection? Obviously, Crow missed this crucial step which will allow her plan to succeed in curbing global warming.

Wait, you say, why do we not just use cloth napkins and handkerchiefs? Well, that would seem an adequate solution, but both of those are already in use. We need something new, and it has to be designed by our new savior, Sheryl Crow.

All she wants to do is have some fun. And save the environment. Would you deny her?

Corn-Based Ethanol - The Ungreen Alternative Fuel

Today's a busy day, so please forgive me for simply cutting and pasting a very well-written article from The Economist which explains in detail why ethanol made from corn is neither a cheap fuel nor a green fuel. I've added some bold here and there to call attention to particular points, and just a few comments following the story.

Corn-based ethanol not cheap, not green

THE ECONOMIST

It is not often that this newspaper agrees with Fidel Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from his sickbed last week to write an article criticizing George W. Bush's unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point.

Along with other critics of the United States' ethanol drive, Castro warned against the "sinister idea of converting food into fuel." The United States' use of corn to make ethanol biofuel, which can then be blended with gasoline to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn.

As more land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat goes up, too. The food supply is being diverted to feed the United States' hungry cars.

Ethanol is not much used in Europe, but it is a fuel additive in the U.S., and a growing number of cars can use either gasoline or ethanol. It accounted for only around 3.5 percent of U.S. fuel consumption last year, but production is growing by 25 percent a year because the government subsidizes domestic production and penalizes imports. As a result, refineries are popping up like mushrooms all over the Midwest, which sees itself as the Texas of green fuel.

Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternative-energy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that the U.S. may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil.

The automotive industry loves it, because switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry loves it because ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual for the time being.

Taxpayers seem not to have noticed they are footing the bill.

But corn-based ethanol is neither cheap nor green. It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies) as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year.

Ethanol made from sugar cane, by contrast, is good. It produces far more energy than is needed to grow it, and Brazil, the main producer, has plenty of land available on which to grow sugar without necessarily reducing food production or encroaching on rain forests.

Other developing countries with tropical climates could prosper by producing sugar ethanol and selling it to rich Americans to fuel their cars.

There is a brighter prospect still out there: cellulosic ethanol. It is made from feedstocks rich in cellulose, such as wood, various grasses and shrubs, and agricultural wastes. Turning it into ethanol requires expensive enzymes, but much research is under way to make the process cheaper.

That is still some way off. In the meantime, the U.S. should trash its silly policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidizing bad ethanol, the former would flourish, the latter would wither, the world would be greener and the U.S. taxpayer would be richer.

Ethanol is not going to solve the world's energy problems on its own. But its proponents do not claim that it would. Ethanol is just one of a portfolio of new energy technologies that will be needed over the coming years. Good ethanol, that is -- not the bad stuff the U.S. is so keen on.

Copyright 2007 Economist Newspaper Ltd. Distributed by The New York Times
Syndicate

So there it is. As more farmland is diverted to fuel production, the cost of food increases. Meanwhile, we taxpayers crank out subsidies of more than $7 Billion annually to produce a fuel product that costs us in hidden ways: First in our taxes, and then again in our food purchases. Eventually, it may also cost us when we need to choose between growing fuel and growing food.

What can we do? Write a letter to the editor, or to your Senator or Representative, promoting sensible alternative energy . . . not more subsidies to large-scale corporate agribusiness in our supposedly "capitalist" society!

You may also log on to The Economist's site and view the article here: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJGDQTN&CFID=110855567&CFTOKEN=d7690f-c020e84b-64aa-4dde-a2f2-23db0af23931

The MPG Hacks Heat Up

Over at Treehugger.com, I read about this little doozy. Yes, someone has tweaked out a Hummer to get 40 mpg!

OK, not really. "The equivalent of" 40 mpg. That actually seems to mean 22-24 mpg. How exactly 40 is the equivalent of 22, I'm not sure. Perhaps the Law of Fives has something to do with it, or some of that "Fuzzy Math" Bush II was once so fond of mentioning.

The full story at ZDNet tells us the same thing. "Equivalent of 40 mpg", but only lists 22-24 mpg as an actual achievement. My best guess is that it gets the equivalent distance in emissions as a 40 mpg vehicle if you use biodiesel. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Anyway, it's a lot better than 10 mpg. Right? Let's consider.

It requires the complete replacement of the engine and transmission. This isn't a little tweak. This isn't a home conversion kit you buy off the 'net.

There's no mention of the expense involved in this little "adjustment", but I'd wager it runs several thousand dollars. Probably not worth the expense of the fuel savings. But now it will get 650 horsepower, wheeee! (I bet that figures into that magical 22 = 40 thing. An unmodified Hummer gets 325 hp.)

Then there's the additional invested energy in making a replacement for a brand-new engine. How much energy will be wasted in that? Will anyone make use of the old engine?

In my view, this "greening" of Hummers is all about stroking the egos and soothing the consciences of the owners. It's expensive and wasteful, and serves only to keep these mammoth fuel-wasters on the road and make them appear more socially acceptable.

Want to get 27 mpg in a truck for only $5,000? Do what I did.

Buy a used mid-sized or compact pickup.

Want more luxury? Buy something that's more efficient than a Hummer!

Skyfarming: Skyscrapers to Replace Flat Farms?

New York Magazine offers a look at "vertical farms", an energy-saving, land-saving food production strategy.


Columbia University's Dr. Dickson Despommier (www.verticalfarm.com) has been working on the vertical farm concept since 2001, and is now beginning to attract the attention of both scientists and investors.


Essentially, vertical farms propose 30-story buildings, each floor stacked to grow two to ten different crops.

Once operational, nothing would be wasted:

• Treated wastewater from the adjacent city is retreated for safety and used for irrigation.
• Pure water transpired by plants is condensed, collected, and either sold as drinking water or reused in irrigation.
• Solar collectors or windturbines collect environmental energy.
• Solar power feeds a "pellet power" production facility, recycling biowastes like corn husks and cobs, along with restaurant waste, into pellets. Pellets are then burned to operate a steam-driven electric plant.

Not limited to plants, such urban farms can also raise fish and poultry.


A few benefits of such structures:

• Can be built today, using current technology
• Each building removes thousands of acres of farmland from production
• Efficiently uses resources
• Virtually eliminates transportation expense for food
• Organic farming more feasible
• No weeds, insects, or plant viruses, so no need for GMO plants or pesticides

Using these vertical farms, thousands of acres of farmland could be returned to forest growth, supplying timber and helping reduce global warming.

Drawbacks? They won't be cheap to build -- approximately $200 million in current dollars -- and won't be cost-effective up front. Placing them where they're best sited, in urbanized areas, means relocating or redirecting urban development.

The first such tower may be built in Dubai, the oil-rich emirate in the Middle East which recently constructed an indoor ski resort and is presently constructing islands approximating the shape of all the countries of the world. Dubai has little to no arable land, little water (they're fed by desalinization plants), and plenty of money.

If you ask me, it's about time they put some of their cash toward something useful.

Further designs and information may be found on Despommier's website, www.verticalfarm.com.

CIGS are good for you? When it's solar technology, sure!

That's right, there's yet another solar power technology under development, and this one is poised to hit the market in 2009. It's called CIGS, an abbreviation for CuInGaSe2, which is an abbreviation for copper, inidium, gallium, selenide 2, a semiconductor compound which, embedded in a sheet of polymer, can release electrons while absorbing sunlight. It's been around since the 1990s, but relatively low cost of silicon (until now - processing is extremely energy-intensive) and the extremely low cost of carbon fuels (until now) have hampered the need for development.

Like the dye-based cells mentioned yesterday, these cells can work on cloudy days.

Also like the dye-based cells mentioned yesterday, they will have a lower production rate per square foot of cell, compared to traditional, silicon-based cells. However, it is expected by US firm Allied Materials that a product which produces power at a cost of $1 per watt (competitive with current carbon-based power generation) will be ready by 2009. Swiss company Flisom is working on a similar product and timeline.

The bad news? Even the boosters aren't enthusiastic about solar wresting production capacity away from carbon:

"We think solar power can provide 20pc of all the incremental energy needed worldwide by 2040," [says Mike Staple, of Allied Materials]

The full article is available here.

IPCC to World: We're Screwed, and It's Our Fault

Last night, we had good news about cheap solar cells. Woohoo! Technology to the rescue!

Today, we have the IPCC's latest report, "Fourth Assessment of Working Group II". You can read the summary for policymakers here. (23 pages)

It was good while it lasted.

The Third Assessment, released in 2001, became baseline for the Fourth Assessment. New data, with measurements from scientists all across the globe, has resulted in improved forecast models.

A brief overview:

Within the past six years, observations include:

• Earlier spring thaws and increased discharge from snowpacks and glacial melt
• Melting of permafrost
• Increased glacial lakes, in number and size
• Altered behavior in migratory animals (birds and fish)
• Relocation of temperature-sensitive species to higher altitudes or higher latitudes (this includes malaria-carrying mosquitoes . . .)

The IPCC concludes, with 80-90% certainty, that global temperature increases are induced by human activity. They call this "anthropogenic warming".

Predictions "by mid-century" include:

• A 10-40% increase in river flows and water availability in high latitudes and wet tropical areas.
• A 10-30% decline in water availability in drier, mid-latitude regions and dry tropical areas.
• A significant (undetermined) decline in glacial and snowpack water storage, the melt from which supplies one in six currently-living people.
• Widespread ecosystem failures, as drought, combined with its companions wildfire and insect infestation, destroy forests; ocean acidification kills off marine life (shells and coral reefs will dissolve); and damage/disturbance from flooding.
• Extinction of 20-30% of the world's plant and animal species.
• Failure of ecosystems to continue carbon uptake by mid-century, accelerating warming.

Is there any good news?

• Disruption of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (the ocean currents which moves warm water to the north and colder water south, explained nicely at Wikipedia) is "very unlikely" (slowing of the MOC is "very likely" (> 90% probability). You can learn about how it's monitored here.
• "Sustainable development" (undefined in the report) can "reduce vulnerability to climate change".
• If we can stabilize emissions at 2000 levels, the global mean temperature will continue to rise another 0.6 degrees Celsius, but should then stabilize.

The message I'm taking from this? Hold onto your hats, boys. It's gonna be a bumpy century.


A good overview from an insurance perspective is here.

Interactive Mapping - How Wet Will You Get?

A clever blogger at firetree.net has put together an interactive mapping project which works with Google Maps, to show you the effect of a rise in sea level of 1 to 14 meters (roughly, 3 to 42 feet). There might be some surprises . . .

For example, Portland, Oregon is quite a few miles from the ocean -- over an hour's drive. But its average elevation? 50 feet above sea level, at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. (That'd be why it was once, and will likely be again, a port city.)



Here's a map showing Portland with that 14m rise in sea level. You'll note, if you follow the link and knock it back to 7m, or other levels, that most of the same areas get flooded, though it appears to become intermittent.

At only 7 meters, some significant chunks of Seattle get pretty moist, too. A mere 3-meter rise will take out much of Sacramento. Might not be the best place for a capital city, after all?

San Francisco, you ask? That hilly city by the Bay? It will hold up fairly well . . . but most of the surrounding areas get nailed with as little as 3m. Here's 14m for comparison. Most of SF is fine, but inland areas like Stockton are completely obliterated. Modesto gains a bay of its own.

Have a look at the map, and check out your area. It helps put that pesky global warming thing into perspective!

How are you situated?

CHEAP, Dye-Based Solar Cells from Massey University!

That's right, scientists at Massey University's Nanomaterials Research Centre in New Zealand have managed an incredible breakthrough: A solar cell that works in low-light conditions (think cloudy days) and costs a mere ten percent of what a comparable silicon solar cell costs to produce.

Too good to be true? Let's hope not!



The new solar cell -- it's currently at the "proof of concept" stage, but a "commercial-use prototype" is expected in two to three years -- uses specially formulated synthetic dyes which imitate the natural compounds plants use for photosynthesis. Such dyes could be impregnated in roofing material and exterior wall panels, and also in window glass. Bulky and expensive solar arrays could soon be a thing of the past!

Dr. Wayne Campbell, the lead researcher, has a few comments:

. . . [T]he green solar cells are more environmentally friendly than silicon-based cells as they are made from titanium dioxide – a plentiful, renewable and non-toxic white mineral obtained from New Zealand’s black sand.

Titanium dioxide is already used in consumer products such as toothpaste, white paints and cosmetics.

“The refining of pure silicon, although a very abundant mineral, is energy-hungry and very expensive. And whereas silicon cells need direct sunlight to operate efficiently, these cells will work efficiently in low diffuse light conditions,” Dr. Campbell says.

“The expected cost is one 10th of the price of a silicon-based solar panel, making them more attractive and accessible to home-owners.” - Massey University press release, http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases/04-04-07.html

This breakthrough is the result of a ten-year research project at Massey.

Nothing to See Here . . . No Worries!

This parody of business blogs paints a rosy picture:

We Will Never Run Out of Oil, For Reals

No really. Cantarell is soaring, like the Hindenberg. Perma-downers like Matthew Simmons chirp “peak oil” like a kookaburra spotting a snake or whatever it is a kookaburra chirps about up in the eucalyptus, but our “infinity oil” thesis posits that not only we will never hit so-called peak oil, we will never ever run out of oil.
Never ever.

Soaring like the Hindenburg. An apt turn of phrase!

The Cantarell Oil Field is Mexico's largest, and the second-largest in the world, with a current production in the neighborhood of 2 million barrels per day. However, it has already peaked and begun its decline.

The parodist's link is to a WSJ article which requires a subscription to view. Here's a free link to another story on the same subject . . . from 2006.

Pemex Says Cantarell 2006 Production to Decline 8% (Update1)
By Thomas Black

Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico's state- owned oil monopoly, said production at its Cantarell oil field, the world's second-largest by volume, will decline 8 percent in 2006, dropping faster than its December [2005] estimate of 6 percent.

Cantarell will produce 1.86 million barrels of crude a day in 2006, Vinicio Suro, deputy director of planning and evaluation for Pemex's production and exploration unit, said in a conference call with analysts. Pemex in December [2005] said the field, which accounted for 57 percent of Mexican crude output in the first half of this year, would produce 1.9 million barrels per day in 2006 compared with 2.03 million barrels a day in 2005. [Emphasis added.]

. . .

With efforts to stem Cantarell's decline and to boost output at peripheral fields, daily production at the company may decline to less than 2.8 million barrels by 2010 and 2.5 million barrels by 2012, Padilla said. [Note: this is for the company as a whole, not the Cantarell field.]

"Our bigger concern starts in about 2008,'' Padilla said.

Suro said Pemex is developing different geological models and estimates that could change the forecast for Cantarell production it made in December of 1.68 million barrels per day in 2007 and 1.43 million barrels a day in 2008.

I wonder what's happening now? Hey, this looks fresh, also from Bloomberg:

Pemex Turns to Horizontal Wells to Boost Oil Output, WSJ Says
By James Kraus

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos is increasing the use of horizontal wells that allow a single platform to pull oil from a larger area to maximize dwindling reserves at the Cantarell field, the Wall Street Journal said..

The company, the third biggest oil supplier to the U.S., plans to drill more such wells this year as part of $2.4 billion in spending to slow the decline in output at the field to about 50 percent of last year's rate, the Journal said, citing consultants.

The wells may cut the decrease in output to about 200,000 barrels of daily output at year's end from about 400,000, the Journal said.

Cantarell last year supplied the Mexican government with $25 billion out of some $53 billion in oil revenue, the Journal said. Pemex predicts the field will probably continue to decline by about 10 percent annually to a daily average of 600,000 in 2013, the Journal reported. [Emphasis added.]

Last Updated: April 5, 2007 03:52 EDT

Let's do the math, shall we? 2006 prediction was 1.86 MBD (million barrels per day), down from just over 2.0 MBD. That's a predicted decline of 140,000 BD. Compare with the actual decline of 400,000 BD!

I wonder if everyone else is predicting as well as Pemex?

Cantarell is indeed soaring like the Hindenburg. How's that hydrogen economy coming along, by the way?

"Dust Bowl" Predicted, Southwestern US Drought

A team led by Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory predicts a "perpetual drought" in the Southwestern United States. The predicted drought should have significant observable effects before 2021:

Drought conditions are expected to resemble the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s and Texas' worst-ever drought of the 1950s, Dr. Seager said. Unlike those droughts, however, the new conditions won't be temporary, the study found.

"This time, once it's in, it's in for good," Dr. Seager said.

. . .

The Columbia research team examined the output of 19 climate models that made a total of 49 projections of future rainfall, temperatures and evaporation in the Southwest. All but the three of the projections concluded that the region will face a serious increase in drought conditions as early as 2021.

This map indicates the areas predicted to experience the "permanent drought"; the darker the color, the more severe the drought predicted.

The IPCC's next report is due out tomorrow.

US Government (GAO): Peak Oil by 2040

As I begin this blog, gasoline prices have reached $3.00 a gallon or more in some parts of the United States, with a ten-cent rise in the past week. Oil is running about $64.50 per barrel.

Meanwhile, most oil fields throughout the world have peaked, outside of the Middle East. United States oil fields peaked in 1971.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office of the United States Government released a report ("CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production") detailing projections for the peak and decline of oil production worldwide. The highlights include:

The situation, as GAO sees it:

The U.S. economy depends heavily on oil, particularly in the transportation sector. World oil production has been running at near capacity to meet demand, pushing prices upward. Concerns about meeting increasing demand with finite resources have renewed interest in an old question:

What question? This is the question framed by GAO:

How long can the oil supply expand before reaching a maximum level of production—a peak—from which it can only decline?

The answer GAO arrived at:

. . . oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040.

Ah, that's specific. Thanks. GAO continues:

This range of estimates is wide . . . how quickly the oil remaining in the ground is used [depends upon] the amount of oil still in the ground; how much of that oil can ultimately be produced given technological, cost, and environmental challenges as well as potentially unfavorable political and investment conditions in some countries where oil is located; and future global demand for oil. Demand for oil will, in turn, be influenced by global economic growth and may be affected by government policies on the environment and climate change and consumer choices about conservation.

What does that mean for us in the US (and other industrialized nations)?

In the United States, alternative fuels and transportation technologies face challenges that could impede their ability to mitigate the consequences
of a peak and decline in oil production, unless sufficient time and effort are brought to bear.

For example, although corn ethanol production is technically feasible, it is more expensive to produce than gasoline and will require costly investments in infrastructure, such as pipelines and storage tanks, before it can become widely available as a primary fuel.

Key alternative technologies currently supply the equivalent of only about 1 percent of U.S. consumption of petroleum products, and the Department of Energy (DOE) projects that even by 2015, they could displace only the equivalent of 4 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption. In such circumstances, an imminent peak and sharp decline in oil production could cause a worldwide recession.

If the peak is delayed, however, these technologies have a greater potential to mitigate the consequences. DOE projects that the technologies could displace up to 34 percent of U.S. consumption in the 2025 through 2030 time frame, if the challenges are met. The level of effort dedicated to overcoming challenges will depend in part on sustained high oil prices to encourage sufficient investment in and demand for alternatives. [Emphasis added.]

So what does that mean? According to the GAO report, the decline in oil production will begin in earnest any time in the next 33 years. "Any time" includes next week. If we really work hard, we in the US can replace 34 % of our current energy consumption by 2030, or in the next 23 years! And that's only with both political will and massive investments in new infrastructure and deployment of technology.

Oh, happy day, the government will save us! Or at least cushion the blow.

GAO continues:

However, there is no coordinated federal strategy for reducing uncertainty about the peak’s timing or mitigating its consequences.

Oops. Maybe not.

What does GAO recommend?

To better prepare for a peak in oil production, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy work with other agencies to establish a strategy to coordinate and prioritize federal agency efforts to reduce uncertainty about the likely timing of a peak and to advise Congress on how best to mitigate consequences. In commenting on a draft of the report, the Departments of Energy and the Interior generally agreed with the report and recommendations.

GAO recommends . . . another study.

Here's a more extensive review of the GAO study, if you don't feel like reading the whole thing!

Perhaps some more concrete recommendations would be useful. Things coming to mind here?

• Immediately raise CAFE standards. We have the technology for cars to get far better mileage on average, yet still produce cars getting less than 20 mpg. WHY?

• Institute a new gas tax. WHAT? Yes. A tax on consumer gasoline, with all funds earmarked toward public transportation and development/deployment of alternative energy generation. This would serve multiple goals: encourage more efficient use of existing autos by consumers; increase demand for more efficient vehicles; encourage a transition to public transportation or location closer to resources (employment, shopping); and raise funds for large-scale subsidized deployment of solar arrays and mass-transit projects, along with other retrofit projects.

• Phase out the incandescent light bulb. Only 5% of the energy used by such a bulb creates light; the rest creates heat. By contrast, 15-30% of the energy used by a compact fluorescent (which currently costs about $2) creates light. They also require less frequent replacement, lasting 10,000 hours instead of an incandescent's 1,000. California has already introduced legislation to phase out incandescents by 2012. From the article:

In the US, there are around 4 billion incandescent light bulb sockets, says Dutch company Philips, which launched a campaign in Washington DC on 14 March to scrap all inefficient lighting in North America by 2016. Replacing incandescent bulbs with energy-efficient ones would cut the US's annual electricity bill by $18 billion, and cut CO2 emissions by 158 million tonnes, the company says.

Europe uses almost as many incandescent bulbs - 3.9 billion - and so could make similar savings. "If everyone changed over from incandescent bulbs, we could save the energy equivalent to 10 million households," says a spokeswoman for the European Commission, which in May will consider legislation to dump the bulb.

More to come . . .