Breaking free from energy dependence

From: Tom Simonds (tsimonds_at_theworld.com)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:23:18 -0500

Breaking free from energy dependence
By Mark Clayton, The Christian Science Monitor

Ray Kopp enjoyed tooling around in a hydrogen- powered Honda prototype
vehicle so much that, for a moment, he pictured driving one home.

Then Mr. Kopp, an economist at Resources for the Future, remembered the
car's price tag - $1.5 million - and his hopes were dashed.

Therein lies the core of America's energy problem. Short of radically
altering America's driving habits, the United States cannot achieve
energy independence without spending billions of dollars on new
initiatives. And no political consensus exists to spend those sums
despite decades of promises to cut oil imports.

But new plans are emerging that might sway lawmakers.

"Certainly energy independence for the United States is possible in
rough technical terms," says Bill Prindle of the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy in Washington, D.C. "The question is: 'What
would it cost? How quickly could it happen? What kind of political and
economic sacrifices would have to be made?' "

Achieving energy independence really means retooling the car. Coal,
natural gas, and other domestic fuels can heat and power US homes and
factories. But some 70% of oil is used in transportation, four-fifths of
that by cars and trucks. Replacing them with alternative vehicles will
be tough. Hydrogen cars are still at the prototype stage. Hybrids ease
but don't solve the problem. Other alternatives - such as driving less -
dredge up uncomfortable memories of the 1970s.

Even today, the three-decades-old injunctions to drive 55 miles per hour
and buy "unsafe, sluggish, squinchy" little cars - as one new report
says - still haunt consumers as a step backward for the American dream.

But a number of hard-edged new proposals suggest something different:
heavy federal investment in new technologies.

The "New Apollo Project" is a plan backed by labor and environmental
groups. Modeled after America's decade-long push to put a man on the
moon, it would invest $300 billion over 10 years in dozens of energy
projects from hybrid cars to factories to high-speed rail. Predicted
result: 3.3 million new jobs; some 91 million high-mileage vehicles on
the road; a $284 billion savings from a 16% reduction in energy use; and
at least a 54% cut in Persian Gulf oil imports.

"It's clear this country has to make a dramatic transition to much more
sustainable sources of energy," says Robert Borosage, president of the
Institute for America's Future, which backs the plan. "In the long term,
we can see total energy independence. But in the short term, you can
still dramatically reduce American energy dependence, so we don't have
to see young Americans guarding pipelines in Iraq and elsewhere."

Another plan put out earlier this month by a coalition of conservative
Washington think tanks, including the Institute for the Analysis of
Global Security and the Hudson Institute, fingers imported oil as a
critical national security problem that must be addressed.

Called "Set America Free," the plan envisions $12 billion in incentives
paid over four years to automakers and consumers to create a market for
flexible-fuel cars that run on biofuels distilled from plant material.
At the same time, it would promote hybrid and "plug-in hybrid"
gas-electric cars that charge up on electricity at home for short trips,
but still use gasoline as a backup for longer trips.

"We think the transportation fuel sector should be diversified by
utilizing more electricity as a fuel," says Gal Luft, executive director
of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, an energy security
think tank. "Plug-in hybrids could get 100 miles per gallon. With a
flexible-fuel engine, where 80% of the fuel is alcohol and 20% is
gasoline, a hybrid could get 500 miles per gallon" of gas.

Lighter but stronger

One of the most radical energy independence plans may also be among the
most conservative in its assumptions. "Winning the Oil Endgame" is a
Pentagon-funded study by the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think
tank. The idea is to take carbon-fiber material used to create fighter
jets and bring it to the mainstream of car manufacturing.

The plan envisions that by 2025, most cars will be made of
carbon-composites so light that they require little energy to move down
the highway - but so strong that steel vehicles would be easy losers in
crash-test comparisons.

Nobody has to give up their SUV, according to this plan. Just build it
with carbon fiber instead.

Under the plan, $180 billion would be invested over 10 years to pay for
"fee-bate" market incentives. Based on a government forecast of $26 per
barrel, the plan would save $133 billion a year by 2025 - a modest
prediction given today's oil prices, the authors say.

Even if by 2025 the nation were driving only the equivalent of 2005's
best hybrid vehicles, it would save a sixth of projected US oil needs -
twice the level of its Middle East imports, the report says.

"Our energy future is choice, not fate," the report states. "Oil
dependence is a problem we need no longer have - and it's cheaper not
to."

Crashworthy

Already, carmaker BMW is building carbon-fiber body parts, buying
body-molding equipment, and has plans to shift many operations to carbon
fiber, the report indicates.

"It is very commonly assumed that if cars get lighter they'll become
less safe if they get hit by heavier cars," says Amory Lovins, executive
officer of the Rocky Mountain Institute and an author of the report.
"But if the light car is made out of carbon composites, the game
changes - those materials can absorb six to 12 times as much crash
energy as steel and do so more smoothly. So the lighter car is safer,
even if hit by a heavy car."

If "state of the art" technology were applied to vehicle manufacture,
52% of the forecast oil use would be eliminated by 2025, he predicts.
Half of the remaining oil demand could also be eliminated by then using
a range of biofuels - from ethanol to bio-diesel - as substitutes. The
final 7 million barrels of oil a day could be cut by either boosting
biofuels further, substituting natural gas, or at last implementing
hydrogen fuel-cells.

Such proposals, however, seem like long shots to some - and even
unproductive to others.

"We have a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and oil independence
for the US would amount to a huge economic hit to them," says John
Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute. "It would
increase that country's instability."

And while higher mileage standards on cars helped lower oil consumption,
they "were a huge hit on Detroit," Mr. Felmy says.

"I think a lot of people use these plans to advance their own agendas,"
adds Mr. Kopp of Resources for the Future. "Some want more drilling in
Alaska; others hate SUVs. So a lot of that stuff goes under the guise of
energy independence. What will ultimately be needed is an alternative to
petroleum. Until you do that, you're not going to be able to attain
independence."

After the first oil shock in 1973, President Nixon vowed energy
independence in a decade. Every president since then has promised
greater energy security. Yet oil imports that were 35% of US oil
consumption in 1973 are expected to rise to 63% by 2015, federal
projections show.

John Kerry and President Bush have touted fairly modest plans to boost
US energy security. Mr. Bush would drill for more oil at home and push
research into hydrogen-powered cars. Mr. Kerry champions hydrogen cars,
too, but would mandate tougher mileage standards for cars.

Neither would do more than dent oil imports, experts say.

Mr. Lovins believes the move toward energy independence would not damage
the economy, but revitalize it - giving the equivalent of a huge energy
tax break while fueling a shift to more competitive technologies. That's
what happened during the 1977 to 1985 energy crisis. Oil use fell 17%
and Gulf imports fell 87% - but the nation's output rose 27%, he notes.

"We have market power," Lovins says. "We can save oil faster than they
can sell it."

Copyright 2004, The Christian Science Monitor

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Energy crisis threatens U.S. survival, Gore says
    ... authority on energy and has another plan. ... He doesn't have a plan. ... Cars are a separate issue which Gore wasn't talking much about. ... The part about electric cars was a minor part about capitalizing on the electric infrastructure he wants to build. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • U. S. outflanked in Eurasian energy politics
    ... US outflanked in Eurasia energy politics ... source of 7% of China's oil imports. ... Ripping into China and Russia ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Its official: The age of cheap oil is over, done for, The End
    ... The Era of Cheap Oil Is Over ... the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. ... the IEO projected that the global production of ... substantial increase from the 81.5 million barrels produced in 2006. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: embracers of lunatic economics(the free market)continue to bite us long after they are dead and
    ... The free-market inflation of oil prices will eventually lead to ... Curtailing energy consumption will slow the economy and prolong the ... for electrical power, including solar power. ... Oil prices dropped and stayed relatively stabile for two decades. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: McCains energy plan
    ... In Monday's WSJ Personal Journal Section which was devoted to Debating the Issues, and which covered four issues debated by representatives of both campaigns, Obama's representative was reported to have stated that Senator Obama is not opposed to nuclear energy unless congress passes a 'larger energy plan.' ... alternative source of energy to produce electricity NOW, and the nuclear option is currently available and would significantly reduce the consumption of oil, as a majority of the power plants use oil to produce electricity. ... his plan becomes essentially no different from John McCain's who says give tax credits to industry and let them develop it without government interference. ... If government is going to foot the bill, then it should set quite specific goals. ...
    (soc.retirement)