Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5413)	2/5/2007 5:33:14 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24212

Top Energy Scientists Agree, Bush Wrong on Alternative Fuels -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 February 2007 Oil Renewables Politics In Brief: "...witnesses from three of America’s premier energy research institutions cast grave doubt on the feasibility of reaching President Bush’s State of the Union goal of manufacturing 35 billion gallons a year of alternative fuels by 2017." Post Carbon Institute Communications Director Richard Bell reports. Top Energy Scientists Agree, Bush Wrong on Alternative Fuels 35 Billion Gallons/Year by 2017 Goal Out of Reach Washington, DC--At an all-day Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee conference on “renewable biofuels,” witnesses from three of America’s premier energy research institutions cast grave doubt on the feasibility of reaching President Bush’s State of the Union goal of manufacturing 35 billion gallons a year of alternative fuels by 2017. The witnesses agreed that DOE’s spending on alternative fuels was far, far below what was necessary to meet the president’s goal, much less the more critical goals of increasing the country’s energy security while decreasing carbon emissions. Bush’s State of the Union announcement was a major boost for the alternative fuels industry. But if the president has thrown out a number that is not supported by the best researchers in the field, the resulting loss of credibility could undercut investor confidence in the industry. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), the most senior Republican on the committee and its previous chairman, brought this damaging testimony to light in the last session of an all-day, all-biofuels marathon with some 33 witnesses in six panels. During their respective testimonies, several witnesses on the final panel hinted that we could not manufacture enough alternative fuels to meet the president’s goal without an unprecedented shift in federal priorities. Looking at the witnesses before him, Domenici plaintively asked why would Bush have used the 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels goal for 2017 “when you’re telling us you don’t know how to do it.” Before the panelists could answer, Senator Bingaman (D-NM), chair of the committee, suggested that the committee ask the Department of Energy, which was presumably the source of the president’s goal. If there were DOE representatives in the room, they kept quiet. Dr. Terry Michalske from Sandia National Laboratories said that the country was spending a “shockingly small amount” of resources given the dimensions of the twin problems of increasing the country’s energy security while decreasing its production of greenhouse gases. Dr. Michael Davis of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory pointed out that the entire Department of Energy annual budget was only $2.5 billion for all of DOE’s programs, while the country was spending $1 billion a day on energy. Dr. Dan Arvizo, director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said that we were just “talking all the wrong scale” about the amount of money needed for a crash program. Dr. Kristala Prather from the MIT Laboratory for Energy and Environment referred to a recent study which concluded that the federal government needs to increase funding on energy research by a factor of 10. She noted that when the federal government ramps up an R&D program, private industry spending usually follows. Dr. Michael Davis of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory suggested what amounted to a way to get Bush off the hook: change the definition of the problem. “Don’t require the 35 billion gallons to be all ethanol,” Davis suggested. “Do more on energy efficiency. Allow for some electricity to be part of the solution.” So where did Bush’s number come from? It remains to be seen whether the Energy Committee will follow through to find out how the president established one of the country’s most important energy goals, what scientific advice he sought, and if today’s witnesses are correct, what would be a realistic goal for the country’s alternative fuels program. In the meantime, the country just spent another $1 billion on energy today. (The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will eventually post statements from witnesses. Check the Committee’s site in a few days.) globalpublicmedia.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This may be a scoop for Richard Bell who is covering the multi-day Senate Biofuels conference for Global Public Media. Other members of the press seemed to have left the room when the witnesses delivered their surprising testimony. So far, no other publication seems to have appeared on the web with the story. For a schedule of the biofuels conference, see Richard's blog: It's Getting Crowded in Climate Change Land. You can post comments and questions at his blog. postcarbon.org