Synthetic Fuels
When we speak of oil dependence, in the context of energy independence, we
are talking about dependence on foreign governments to supply our nation's
oil—which effectively gives those governments control over the U.S. economy
as well as influence over U.S. political and legislative outcomes. Energy independence
is not about ending the use of petroleum, nor is it about cooling the
climate; energy independence is about
cooling the hot heads — the terrorists who depend on Middle-East oil
wealth to finance the dissemination of their anti-American, anti-European hate
propaganda. — 21st Century Hydrocarbon Refinery
The USA possesses the world’s largest reserves of “unconventional” oil
— coal and oil shale — estimated to be the equivalent of 1 trillion
barrels of oil or more. Why, then, is the USA exporting
its wealth to foreign countries instead of using the money to develop synthetic
fuels from American coal and shale? Why are U.S. citizens allowing it?
Synthetic fuels would be produced in America today if the U.S. synthetic
fuels industry had been supported and developed back in the 1980's. Why was
that effort discontinued?
In 1984 President Ronald Reagan cut-off government funding for the
new U.S. synthetic fuels industry because he believed U.S. synthetic
fuels
would be too
expensive, relative to falling oil prices in response to the 1980's
worldwide oil glut. Reagan's National Energy Policy was crafted by his
economic advisors who believed world oil prices would continue to remain
low.
Reagan's energy policy worked, oil prices remained low for many years
(primarily because the Reagan Administration allowed U.S. oil companies
to continue importing foreign oil into the U.S. without limits or
restraint, increasing foreign oil dependence from less than 30% in
1984 to over 60% today) but now the inevitable has happened. The USA is
caught once again, unprepared
to
fuel its own
economy.
Ronald
Reagan's energy policy lacked long-term vision—his
actions ended all hope for a viable U.S. synthetic fuels industry, and
eliminated
U.S. competition to Middle-East oil.
Two years later, in 1986, President
Reagan signed into law the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 which abolished the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program.
It was estimated that less than
$8 billion was actually spent on the program. Today, the U.S. is spending
more than $8 billion every month in Iraq. [The nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the cost of the
Iraq war is about $9 billion per month.]
Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, why should he get all the blame?
What about George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton? They held
office after Reagan, so they could have reversed his policy; why
didn't they?
President
George W. Bush did attempt to reverse Reagan's policy. In 2005 Bush
asked Congress to fund a synthetic fuels plant for the
U.S.
Air Force that would have insured a secure domestic supply
of jet fuel for military aircraft—why
did Congress fail to support the president's request?
The USA has more coal than the Middle East has oil
The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the United States Department
of Defense (DoD), has estimated that the cost of a
100,000 barrel per day 21st century Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) synthetic
fuels plant will be about 6 billion dollars.
For the price of the Wall Street bailout—$700
billion—the
DoD could build more than 100 new CTL plants, which would
produce over ten million barrels of CTL synthetic fuel per day — Creating
millions of U.S. jobs, directly and indirectly; and stopping the
export of
$400 billion per year to foreign governments in payment for their
oil. The money would remain in this country, invested in USA
communities and families.
Today, the U.S. Air Force is making every effort to
develop synthetic fuels, but the efforts have been blocked by the U.S. Congress
because of environmental concerns.
“We don't want new sources
of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even
worse,” said
House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. In a
letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Waxman wrote that
a promise to control greenhouse gas emissions
from synthetic fuels
was not enough. Waxman
cited Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill that prohibits federal
agencies, including the U.S. Military, from purchasing synthetic
fuels unless the fuels emit the same or fewer
greenhouse gases
as petroleum.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed
into law by President Bush on December 19, 2007
“Prohibits a federal agency from entering into a contract for procurement
of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional
petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use (other than for research
or testing), unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied
under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such
emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional
petroleum sources.”
Section 526 was inserted into the 2007 energy bill by U.S. Congressman
Henry Waxman (Chairman
of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform1)
for the purpose of blocking military sponsorship
of synthetic fuels made
from USA coal and other domestic hydrocarbons: “including
a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources,” which
refers to oil shale, tar sands and heavy crude. (Nonconventional
hydrocarbon resources in the USA hold more than one trillion barrels
of oil equivalent.)
Henry Waxman's influence, through Section 526 of the energy Bill, will
block U.S. progress toward energy independence similar to
Ronald Reagan's opposition to synthetic fuels. Waxman's goals may be different
than Reagan's but his
actions are equally short-sighted.
Energy independence and climate change are separate issues. Americans
need to understand the relative priority. Climate change is a
sustainability
issue that must be solved as the world progresses toward
complete
global modernization. In contrast, global oil dependence is an
immediate threat,
a clear and present danger. Metaphorically speaking, the threat
of greenhouse gas emissions is like the threat of cancer from prolonged
cigarette
smoking;
In contrast, the threat of oil financed terrorism is like a coiled
rattlesnake immediately on the path in front of a day-dreaming
hiker.
1Beginning January 2009, with
the 111th Congress, Henry
Waxman became the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"It is a basic lesson of chemistry that the energy needs
we meet today with petroleum can be met by other hydrocarbons,
including
coal, tar sands and oil shale, for which there are centuries'
worth of supplies, and environmentally sound methods of production
available today or within economic reach. Natural petroleum has
a
cost advantage as a liquid fuel but the cost of making synthetic
[fuels] petroleum from coal or tar sands is modest and likely to
fall substantially if carried out on a large scale and with appropriate
research and
development.
"The alleged cost advantages of natural petroleum over synthetic
[fuels] petroleum have probably already disappeared when we recognize
the
U.S. is paying a fortune in finances and blood for Middle East oil
that is not counted in the price at the pump. The dollar costs of
U.S. military operations in the Middle East attributable to policing
the energy flows are tens of billions a year, if not $100 billion
(£ 57 billion) or more. This amounts to a hidden subsidy to
oil use of ten dollars or more per barrel exported from the region."
— America's disastrous energy plan By
Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, Columbia University. Published
in Financial Times, December 23, 2003
Recommended reading:
Frequently asked questions about synthetic fuel
The barriers to developing a synthetic fuels
industry are not technical, but social
—By Galen J. Suppes, Ph.D. and Truman S. Storvick, Ph.D.
Galen J. Suppes is associate professor and Truman S. Storvick emeritus professor
of the department of chemical engineering at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
“Let us set as our national goal, in the spirit of Apollo, with the
determination of the Manhattan Project, that by the end of this decade we
will have developed the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending
on any foreign energy source.”
Address to the Nation About Policies To Deal With the Energy
Shortages
— U.S. President Richard Nixon, November 7, 1973
Recommeded YouTube videos:
President
Gerald Ford - 1975 Energy Crisis
The Energy Crisis Is Real - 1979 Jimmy Carter
Montana
Governor Brian Schweitzer on Energy Independence
|
