Proposed Plan to End Oil Imports

American imports of oil could be eliminated by 2030, a new study claims, if the U.S. adopts an aggressive 20 year program of energy efficiency and commercialization of four already-demonstrated technologies for making transportation fuels.The New York Times reported on Saturday that the study sponsored by a nonprofit group of legislators and governors called the Southern States Energy Board, to be released on Monday, urges a crash program to meet fuel needs without imports. The study, authored by Roger Bezdek, claims that more than a million new jobs would be created and the deficit reduced by $600 billion.

The four technologies are:

1. Coal liquefication which would replace 29% of oil.
2. Use biomass to make syngas which would be converted to liquid fuels by a gasification-Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Process.
3. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using CO2 produced by the other processes which would also eliminate CO2 emmisions that cause global warming.
4. Production of oil from shale.

The study indicates that oil prices of $35 to $55 a barrel are necessary for these process to be competitive.

The study does not endorse corn ethanol, but it does anticipate the production of cellulosic ethanol, in a process which it points out is not yet commercial.

While I think that the first three points are possible, I believe that the oil shale program would not contribute significantly in the proposed 20 year time period. We have not made significant progress on that technology and calling it commercial is very misleading. Using coal liquefaction has been identified by several as a way to replace expensive oil.

Using biomass to produce liquid fuels has not been demonstrated to a significantly greater extent than biorefinery produced cellulosic ethanol has and I would argue that gasification of biomass is more difficult to comercialize than hydrolysis of biomass.  I believe that biorefineries to make cellulosic ethanol are less expensive than gasification-FT gasoline or diesel, but both technologies are too immature to make definitive cost estimates. Both processes produce CO2 that could be used for EOR. Cellulosic ethanol of course has less energy content than FT liquids and is more difficult to transport than FT liquids.  On the other had location of of cellulosic ethanol plants can be very diverse and relatively easy to permit while the expense of transporting coal and more difficulty in getting permits are negatives for FT processes. Locating them near coal mines where their may be unemployment will help the permitting process.

A less expensive program would be the one described in the previous post where the use of biomass fuels and conservation, through mandating higher mileage cars and light trucks, would all that would be required.  Without aggressive mandates, as are required for the current study, it would take longer to implement than the program indicated by this study.  Whether biofuels are made in a biorefinery or in gasification-FT process does not make too much difference to me, as long as the lower cost process is used.  I believe that a combination of coal-liquefaction, biorefineries, gasification-FT and mandating higher gas mileage is the quickest route.  There is an argument to let market forces cause a shift to higher mileage vehicles, but I believe that with an actual shortage of oil occurring within the next 20 years we will not be prepared if we do not mandate conservation.

I am anxious for the full report to come out and find out what credential the author has.

Resource: Study Cites Plan to End U.S. Oil Imports, Matt Wald, NYT, July 15, 2006

Comments

[Paul Dietz]

CTL technology is very competitive today; the IRR for a CTL plant at current oil prices could exceed 100%/year, if you go by this presentation.

What this means is that the price of oil will come down, surely as falling off a cliff. There's just too much money to be made in replacing it.

[Cervus]

I'd prefer to replace #4 with fuel algae.

[cjohnson]

The big issue here is that we would be replacing fossil fuels with fossil fuels. Shale and coal are even worse than oil and gas when it comes to CO2 emissions, and sequestering billions of tons of CO2 per year from power plants and sequestering CO2 from vehicles period seems far too impractical. Burning those kinds of liquid fuels (from F-T) does little to reduce city air pollution.

F-T/cellulose ethanol from biomass is a good thing, though. The great thing with these is that they can take a very wide array of feedstocks.

A better thing to do (than use fossil fuels) might be to tame the most wasteful user of transport fuels: the personal automobile. Automobile makers need to be aggressive with electric plug-in hybrids, and (like you say) the government should discourage the use of inefficient vehicles. The electricity should be generated with renewable and nuclear energy.

[Bde2200]

Recent reports from Shell and Raytheon indicate that oil from shale is feasible. Both processes involve in situ heating of the rock and collection from numerous wells. According to Shell, their process will break even at $30/barrel equivalent and produces much more energy than it consumes. I suspect we will need all four technologies mentioned and more. The article didn’t mention nuclear, wind, wave, algae, geothermal, and solar, all of which will be part of the mix, to a greater or lessor extent. Their goal is a tough one, but possible.

[amazingdrx]

"a nonprofit group of legislators and governors called the Southern States Energy Board,"

No mention of wind, wave, solar power, or electric cars, which is no surprise.

I believe this generally southern US sphere of influence will stick with combustion and nuclear, while renewables powering electric vehicles will happen in the northern US and the rest of the planet.

It is becoming a case of the corporate friendly politics of the southern US versus the rest of the planet. On energy policy as it has become on US foreign policy.

Would it be better from a practical stand to go forward on renewable electric transportation without their support? I think so.

Better to let them go their own way and we go ours. Freedom of choice and economic competition can decide the eventual winning strategy in energy policy.

The CO 2 problem can be solved even if the gas guzzling (or ethanol guzzling) continues in that limited region of the planet as long as the rest of the world goes green.

And if the nuclear waste and leakage problems are roughly confined to that region the rest of the planet can tolerate it. Look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl. Isolated contamination is not the end of the world.

I think this is a case of honest political and scientific disagreement that only capitalist competition can resolve. All we ask is a fair playing field free of influence peddling and tax subsidies.

[Daniel]

Here is a retro idea that doesn't require tens of billions of upfront investment: commuter car-pooling to and from work.

It has the potential to double (even triple or quadruple) fuel efficiency overnight.

Check out my blog: http://time-is-energy.blogspot.com/ (July 16th) for how a $1/mile incentive might work.

[Rick]

CTL technology is very competitive today; the IRR for a CTL plant at current oil prices could exceed 100%/year

CTL is a greenhouse gas nightmare. I would rather syncrude from coal be priced at $70/bbl with the carbon sequestered than $40/bbl otherwise. I agree with you that large scale CTL is inevitable. I just hope we do it right.

[Michael Cain]

Shell is, in their public statements, much more cautious than "feasible". They have some pilot work and some very interesting systems engineering, but describe the next few years as "research" to determine if the process can be commercialized. They estimate that the amount of electricity required to produce a million barrels per day from the shale would be roughly half of the current total electricity production in Colorado. Their EROEI figures assume that electricity is all gas-fired at 50% efficiency; it seems unlikely that they will be able to gain access to that much gas; if the source is coal at 30% instead, the figures are not nearly so good. One issue that eventually emerges for any new generating plant in Colorado is the availability of water. Essentially all the water in the state is already spoken for, in some cases more than once, so finding available supplies can be difficult.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that 5,000 2.5 MW wind turbines at 30% duty cycle could provide the necessary power. If Shell wants to build those for us, however, I am strongly in favor.

[Thomas]

Micheal,
You're quite right. Shale oil from coal fired electricity is almost an energy loser. But who cares, if you can make a buck of the stuff?

Your idea of using wind turbines is especially good because the heating of billions of tonnes of dirt is totally insensitive to variations in wind power (I guess...). Only thing is, the electric heaters have to be rated at three times the average load. I'm sure that will add 1-2% extra cost to the project and therefore deem it "unrealistic"...

But seriously, if you need 4,000 MW new power for a huge energy sink like shale oil, it is ideally suited for renewable energy and wind is currently the cheapest form. If the wind turbines are built right on top of the electrical heaters, there's no need for a costly electrical grid, although I would not recommend that solution.

On a different note, I seriously hope they leave the stuff in the ground because a new gigantic source of CO emissions not really what the world needs...

[Paul Dietz]

One issue that eventually emerges for any new generating plant in Colorado is the availability of water.

One can build thermal powerplants with 'dry' cooling systems, which condense steam in a heat exchanger that transfers the heat directly to the air. This has been done in Wyoming where cooling water was unavailable, and also om the northeast at a location where clouds from an evaporative cooling system could have caused traffic accidents.

[Jesse Jenkins]

Jim, you write, "I am anxious for the full report to come out and find out what credential the author has."

Isn't Bezdek one of the co-authors of the Hirsch Report? I'm pretty sure he is.

[Lloyd E. Weaver]

This is not an OK proposal as it does not include a hefty dose of oil conservation. Increase power efficiency to IGCC future standards of 52% and free up 400 million tons/yr of coal, enough with CTL to make up to 3 million bbl/day. Then fix personal vehicles and big trucks with streamlining, better transmissions and engines, and we nearly eliminate oil imports. Add an electric train system to decrease plane and road travel and it's done and it’s sustainable. This is a much better way then just an oil production focus. And, if one examines ice core data and satellite data, all CO2 arguments (reductions, sequestration, the whole works) are junk science. Warming is sun changes driven, not CO2 driven.

[Kyle]

This proposal would be pretty effective in eliminating our dependence upon foreign oil. However it would do little in the way of improving greenhouse gas emissions and stopping global warming. As previously stated coal burns much dirtier than gasoline. I think a simple E85 mixture might be more effective and more of a viable solution.

[Free building plans hydroponics]

Thanks for the post, we will post your "Free building plans hydroponics" article. I will post for our customers to see your articles on your blog Free building plans hydroponics