The American Energy Security Study (AESS) is the official name of the report referred to in the previous post. In a brief review of the executive summary I picked up the following items that give a little more background about the report.
The American Energy Security (AES) Study shows that the United States can eliminate dependence on oil imports entirely by 2030. It establishes a bold plan to replace approximately five percent of imported oil each year for 20 years, beginning in 2010 (see Figure 1 below). Assuming aggressive implementation beginning in 2007, under the SSEB American Energy Security initiatives domestic liquid fuels production and transportation efficiency savings begin gradually after 2010 and ramp up to produce most of the nation’s liquid fuels requirements by 2030.
To establish U.S. energy security and independence by 2030 all feasible supply and demand options must be aggressively pursued. There is no single answer:
Transportation energy efficiency improvements are important but, by themselves, can contribute only a small portion of the required solution. Renewable biomass fuels are a critical part of the portfolio of required initiatives, but can produce less than one-fourth of the required liquid fuels. CTL, oil shale, and EOR will all contribute substantially, and all three technologies must be aggressively deployed.The U.S. is endowed with the largest alternative oil resources in the world. This includes five hundred billion tons of coal (oil equivalent of approximately 750,000 billion barrels), the potential to sustain 1.3 billion tons of biomass collection/harvesting for liquid fuel production by 2030 (oil equivalent of approximately 4.5 million barrels per day to perpetuity), more than a trillion barrels of oil shale liquid fuels, and 80+ billion barrels of oil stranded in conventional reservoirs that are technically recoverable using CO2 injection and sequestration to enhance oil recovery. These resources rival estimated worldwide conventional oil resources of 1-2 trillion barrels.
Biomass derived liquids, specifically starch/grain base ethanol and biodiesel fuels, are already flowing into the U.S. marketplace in commercial volumes. With a mandate from Congress, corn/grain-based ethanol and biodiesel production are projected to continue to grow rapidly over the next few years. This study has identified three emerging biomass technologies expected to contribute on a much larger scale: cellulosic ethanol; biomass gasification with Fischer-Tropsch fuel synthesis, and pyrolysis.
By producing environmentally superior transportation fuels from near-zero emissions plants, the United States can set an example for the world. Coal, biomass and oil shale derived liquid fuels produced from gasification and follow-up Fischer-Tropsch (FT) processing, for example, will produce ultra-clean, bio-degradable, essentially zero sulfur, low particulate and NOx emissions diesel and jet fuels, having performance characteristics superior to their conventional distillate counterparts. Zero sulfur gasoline also can be produced. Increased performance from FT fuels translates to lower CO2 emissions per mile traveled.
They used data from the EIA for forecast energy demand for vehicles, which includes the use of HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs and FCVs. EIA assumed that the fleet efficiency increased 1.5% a year through 2015 and 1% a year from 2015 to 2030. They used 17 years for the average life of a car based on historical data which translates to half of the current fleet will be replaced in 17 years. Due to increased sales of vehicles the total amount of fuel used increased through the study period.
They give this dissertation on peak oil: A growing number of oil industry experts predict that world crude oil production will “peak” by 2020, or sooner. As the “peak” approaches, world supplies will begin failing to meet world demand, and the shortfall will grow with time. This study forecasts that at oil peaking, oil prices would immediately increase by about 150 percent, and continue to rise as the gap between supply and demand widens. Many oil market specialists contend that if a peak occurs, oil prices could increase much more than 150 percent. Clearly, if oil peaks and the U.S. is unprepared, the economic impact will be catastrophic. Even without peaking, continuing tight markets represent risk.
The AESS estimates that if oil peaks in 2010, and aggressive domestic alternative fuels production programs are not implemented, over the period 2010-2020 the U.S. economy will lose about:
- $4.6 trillion in GDP
- 40 million job years of employment
- $1.3 billion in federal, state, and local government tax revenues
They estimate that if oil peaks in 2020 and no crash programs are implemented, over the period 2020-2030 the U.S. economy will lose about:
$13 trillion in GDP 100 million job years of employment $4 trillion in federal, state, and local government tax revenues
Their estimates for the contribution of biomass and vehicle efficiency are certainly low compared to what I believe. The author has good credentials, being the second author of the Hirsch report. I think he is biased because the Hirsch report concluded that CTL was the major replacement fuel. Biomass fuels have become more of a reality since the Hirsch report, which basically dismissed them. At least Bezdek concluded that they were the second most important technology. That being said, I don't think we should pick apart the details of this report, it shows a path to oil independence even though it is widely different from that of others. People are becoming concerned enough about the problem of increasing oil prices to the extent that they are proposing how to solve the problem. We are making a lot of progress in The Energy Revolution and that's the point.
The American Energy Security Study, Southern States Energy Board, July 2006
Good plan except for the fact that coal if used as replacement for oil will run out in about 60 years. Oil Shale needs natural gas and water which will run out also.
Watch this lecture on growth and the use of resources and then have another look at this plan.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
From the transcript:
This is one of the most dangerous statements in the literature. It's dangerous because its true, it isn't the truth that makes it dangerous, the danger lies in the fact that people take the sentence apart, they just say coal will last 500 years. They forget the caveat with which the sentence started. Now what were those opening words, "at current levels", what does that mean? That means if, and only if we maintain zero growth of coal production.
So let's look at a few numbers. We go to the annual energy review, published by the dept of energy (DOE). They give this as a coal demonstrated reserve base in the United States, it has a footnote that says about half the demonstrated reserve base is estimated to be recoverable. You can not recover and get out of the ground and use 100% of the coal that's there. So this number then, is ½ of this number. We will come back again to those in just a moment. The report also tells us that in 1971 we were mining coal at this rate, twenty years later its at this rate, put those numbers together and the average growth rate of coal production in that twenty years is 2.86% per year. And so we have to ask, well, how long would a reserve last if you have steady growth in the rate of consumption until the last bit of it is used.
"I'll show you the equation here for the expiration time. I'll tell you it takes first year college calculus to derive that equation, so it can't be very difficult. You know I have a feeling there must be dozens of people in this country who've had first year college calculus, but let me suggest, I think that equation is probably the best kept scientific secret of the century!
Now let me show you why, if you used that equation to calculate the life expectancy of the reserve base, or the one half they think is recoverable for different steady rates of growth, you'll find if the growth rate is zero, the small estimate would go about 240 years and the large one would go close to 500 years. So that report to the congress was correct. But look what we get if we plug in steady growth. Back in the 1960's it was our national goal to achieve growth of coal production up around 8% per year. If you could achieve that and continue it, coal would last between 37 - 46 years. President Carter cut that goal roughly in half, hoping to reach 4% per year if that could continue coal would last between 59-75 years. Here's that 2.86%, the average for the recent period of twenty years, if that could continue coal would last between 72-94 years. That's within the life expectancy of children born today. The only way you are going to get any where near this wild quote, this 500 year figure, is to be able to simultaneously do two highly improbable things."
Posted by: Ender | July 17, 2006 at 11:53 PM
Only 16% from efficiency improvements? Over our current status of moms chit-chatting on a cell phone while carreening through town with no one else... in an 8000 pound vehicle? This little gem sounds like it could have been produced by... The Energy Industry, doesn't it?
Posted by: George | July 18, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Was this a study commissioned by "Homeland Security"?
They're doing a "heckuva" job on other fronts. It would fit the pattern. Good work!
Posted by: amazingdrx | July 18, 2006 at 08:07 AM
An energy security plan based mostly on non-renewables is by nature NOT sustainable. This one seems to be dictated by coal and ethanol industries and is not so good for USA in the longer term.
A progressive switch to massive production of clean electricity (sun, wind, waves and nuclear) and electricity driven transportation vehicles such as PHEVs and EVs, electric trains + buses, electrical HVAC for our homes would be much more sustainable while reducing GHG.
The majority of the liquid fuel consumed by our vehicles and our homes for HVAC could be replaced with 50 sq. meters of high efficiency solar panels and storage devices. Liquid fuels should be restricted to airplanes, ships and war machines.
Posted by: Harvey D. | July 18, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Harvey D said: "...Liquid fuels should be restricted to airplanes, ships and war machines."
Yeah! Yeah! Forget Global Warming and Climate Change... Lets just blow each other up!
Excuse me for being pedantic.
Just sounded funny to me...
"Mother and children driving around in M1A1 Abrahms or Challenger 2 MBTs!
Forget SUV's they're yesterdays news... the new one is THE MAIN BATTLE TANK ... only 30 gallons to the mile fuel economy! Classic!"
Posted by: mcr | July 18, 2006 at 04:36 PM
If everyone agrees that energy security is a problem - you might think governments would consider a kind of progressive extra tax on big cars and trucks - not yet I guess.
Posted by: Rick | July 18, 2006 at 05:25 PM
mcr:
War machines are going to be around for a long long time.
Electric fighter planes, long range bombers, flying bombs, heavy tanks, troop carriers, transport planes etc are not on the horizon yet.
What energy would you use?
Posted by: Harvey D. | July 18, 2006 at 10:16 PM
Harvey D:
"War machines are going to be around for a long long time.
Electric fighter planes, long range bombers, flying bombs, heavy tanks, troop carriers, transport planes etc are not on the horizon yet.
What energy would you use?"
Bush: "Yo' Blair, here's 1500 hundred nuke-clear powered supertanks we just developed"
Who needs gasoline when we have nuke-clear... as G.W. would say.
Hmmm... Asside from that point I thought the report was ok - if alittle biased against argicultural energy crops.
Also - THEY NEED TO PUT REFERENCES INTO THE REPORTS... how can one scrutinise their figures??? I couldn't find any refernces in the original report!
Posted by: mcr | July 19, 2006 at 09:25 AM
this is such a cool technology. this is so interesting how this works.
Posted by: oilfield equipment | May 03, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Energy is not dependent on oil. Glad that we as a nation are not dependent on others to provide that for us.
Posted by: Fashion Books | January 04, 2012 at 02:54 PM