Energy Independence & National Security

Security is very dependent on energy. But while energy independence may be the most effective way to secure our country, I do not think the two issues should be presented as one in the same.

edit - Also, ethanol should burn only in Hell.

Given that ethanol is nothing more than moonshine (corn liquor) they ought to remove the subsidy and add the liquor tax to it. That, or give a subsidy to moonshiners. :)

The problem with nuclear is, and will probably remain, what to do with the radioactive waste.

Ethanol, at least from corn, appears to be no more than a break even 'solution'. E10 probably doesn't save any oil, since gas mileage goes down about 10%. And it takes even more oil to grow, harvest, process and transport. Ethanol from non-food sources may not have those drawbacks.

I'd prefer to see us develop home-based solar and wind systems. Decentralized power sources would be much more secure than big centralized systems that provide single points of attack.

And, please, when is someone going to take the design of hybrid vehicles seriously? Put motors in each wheel, use batteries for power, and all you'd need is a 10-30 hp engine and a matching generator to recharge the batteries. AWD and a vastly simplified drive train (no complicated transmission or differentials).

I agree with being energy independent, but what about other natural resources? First is helium. the U.S.'s helium reserve is being sold off at a fantastic rate at ridiculous prices. Helium has a broad range of scientific applications. Liquid helium is the coldest substance that mankind has, and is useful in cooling super conductor proton and atom smashers. A Link to sciencedaily.com article.
http://tinyurl.com/2ve7ng
Second is rare earth elements needed for magnets in such things as electric/hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, disk drives, and smart bombs. In 2008 China supplied 98% of the world's REE. The Mountain Pass Mine in California is getting geared up to go into production again, but we need to make sure it is not decommissioned again because of environmental concerns. A link to an article on bloomberg.com
http://tinyurl.com/275jxss
In conclusion I say that national security depends not only being energy independent, but also in proper conservation and use of resources here in the U.S. that do not depend on other countries.

I've just been reading up on thorium reactors. They seem, so far, to solve most of the problems with nuclear.

I'm going to preface this by stating that I have REALLY done my homework on this one.

Let us begin with the notion that we need to completely replace the 20 million barrels per day of oil that the US consumed in the first half of 2008. The economically viable options do not include nuclear (at $4500 per kWh to build, it would cost over $11 trillion dollars to replace the oil we use with it), solar panel or wind (both even more expensive per unit of energy than nuclear).

There is enough coal and natural gas under our soil to hold us for almost 100 years at our current rate of consumption. At the end of that time though, we will have run out and destroyed our nation's environment and landscape in so doing. Also, to presume our current rate of consumption is naive in the extreme.

The oil that can be recovered at an economically feasible cost using current technology that lies under US soil, if relied upon for 100% all of our oil needs, wouldn't last us three decades.

Biofuel in the quantities needed to replace that 20 million barrels per day is largely a pipe dream, but not completely. Most feedstocks can supply modest amounts of ethanol or oil, but aren't scalable to the necessary degree and/or use needed crop land to grow them. If we grew palm trees on every square inch of land in the world (a ridiculous idea) we wouldn't have enough palm oil to replace just what the US uses, and palm oil is the highest oil yield per acre of land of any crop we can plant.

There is however one biofuel feedstock that could be scaled up to the needed amounts, make the US a net energy producing nation again, and create a whole new industry based upon an indefinitely sustainable energy source. That source is algae grown in closed loop hydroponic containers or "bioreactors." It would take approximately 4-5 million acres set aside for algae production (a bit over one half the size of the state of Maryland), but it neither needs to be nor should be crop land. Arid desert land near enough to mountains to pipe in water for the sealed bioreactors would be ideal; possibly Nevada, Arizona, or New Mexico. It is effectively solar energy, and has the added benefit of removing carbon from the atmosphere. With some modifications, it could be used to power our current fleets of vehicles and could use the current distribution system. During the period of ramping up, it could be mixed with fossil fuel oil. Anything produced above the amounts needed domestically could be sold and exported.

Fossil fuel oil all originated with algae in the first place. The oil that can be produced from it IS oil as we all understand the term. The US could become both energy independent and an energy exporting nation again if we could commit to the goal of growing all of our own fuel by 2025. The jobs created alone make the project worth considering. The airlines and the US military already know what I'm telling you here, and are working like beavers to bring it about. What's missing in our nation is political will, and the MWP could provide that.

Another reason is that there is more global competition for the resources available, which can lead to shortages and increased cost. It is also subject to political abuses.

Was it coincidence that Iraq, France and Russia had a contract to build a pipeline? That was thwarted by our invasion for false reasons. What was the effect on our country?

If Brazil has the capacity to become energy independent with sugar cane, then there stands no reason why the United States cannot do the same given our expansive corn production. Government subsidies should be halted to reduce waste and cost to the taxpayers. Consequently, tax incentives should be offered to all companies who take on the opportunity of developing such alternatives. As a result jobs would be created, foreign oil dependence would be reduced, and a focus on diversification and entrepreneurship would be encouraged.

Also, I completely agree with the above statements regarding algae production. Algae is one of the most cost effective plants to grow, harvest, and process for the purpose of energy consumption. It is truly astounding the amount of CO2 that can be removed from the atmosphere with the growth of so small a species. So, then, the benefit of algae oil production are multifaceted. There really is VERY little downside with the adoption of the practice. Really the only problem that may be encountered is the difficulties that a switch-over from fossil fuels might cause (i.e. the training of the labor force, the refitting of power plants, etc.)

I find the algae proposal intriguing at the minimum. Nevertheless, we still have to drill and conserve more until viable alternatives are delivered. We need to reduce regulatory hurdles and provide incentives for construction of new refineries. We need to drill in ANWAR. We need to tighten safety/construction regulations on offshore drilling and then open it up. But, we also should pass a heavy tax on items like monster SUVs and pickups (unless they are for strictly business use) and Mc Mansions to strongly deter people from being energy hogs. We also need to be far more "America first" - for example, make the proposed Keystone pipeline carry oil for American use, rather than make it easier for that oil to be passed through this country (with all of the significant risks associated with it) only to be loaded on tankers bound for Shanghai. And, we need to remove the rapist speculators from allowing to artificially manipulate the markets while the populace suffers. Place common sense limits to allow those who are truly interested in purchasing vital national commodities like oil and gas the ability to do so, while eliminating the greedy rapist speculators from holding us all hostage. If speculators want to rape a market, let 'em do it with pork bellies or orange juice. Strong medicine for many, but unless we face some harsh, unpleasant realities, things are only going to continue to deteriorate.

Curmudgidus, spot on. I tend to look at energy independence as akin to portfolio diversification. For the record, I helped form a local biodiesel coop just to prove that 'Yankee ingenuity' is alive and well, and the solution to our dependence is not a silver bullet, but a sustainable process across many sources.

Also for the record, as I am a portfolio manager, our portfolios ( mine also) own CLNE, a nat gas conversion company we are just building an investment postion in. The surplus of nat gas we have under our soil is a resource we need to exploit, within the proper environmental constraints. ( mining for gas and mucking up our water supplies long term is an example of a NON-sustainable practice). I also personally own 50 shares of Sasol, a coal to liquids firm borne out of apartheid in the RSA.

In another thread about taxes, an example I use is the alt energy industry, and to be clear, I mean technologies that are currently economically feasible and sustainable, like nat gas conversions and biodiesel. As the agriculture and machine industries have huge multiplier effects ( the highest amongst all industries as per the US DOC), even a dissagregated "cottage" industry of small growers, speciality machine shops, and auto techs can be envisioned. With the multiplier effects of these industries in light, even small can multiply into bigger "than life". From growing oil seed crops on currently unused land, to specialty machining to manufacture retro-fit kits, tubing, servos, etc to the local mechanics who are installing these kits, you can quickly imagine tens of thousand of workers in these and their ancillary industries.

A good portion of those working will be to mix biodiesel into our national fleet fuel and allieviate both pollutants and foriegn dependance, while at the same time providing a LESS EXPENSIVE fuel to blend into conventional refined diesel. Many states already have a 5% bio requirement in any diesel fuel sold in the state, and the biofuel must be locally grown and produced.

To give one a sense of efficacy, bioheat ( biofuel in lieu of heating oil), gives much the same total carbon footprint as heat via natural gas, oft thought of as the cleanest alternative. If nat gas was to double in price from here to say $6/Mbtu, then bioheat becomes economically superior ( assuming its price wouldn't change, which is a spurious assumption ). So its a push, 6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other. Two great techs available NOW!!!!

So its not, is bioheat better than nat gas? The question is: how can we use BOTH technologies more to diversify our energy portfolio and keep our citizens in a better place of security and ecomomic freedom?

One of my crazy BHAI's ( big hairy arsed ideas)is to petition the NHSTA/EPA for a relaxation of emmissions standards for biodiesel commuter vehicles/light trucks. Why? Well, not being an engineer, my empirical testing shows that you can GAIN efficiency by using biodiesel (bioD) over regular petro diesel, by upping the compression ratio. Most bioD is much higher cetane than petroluem-based diesel, hence the engine can have a much higher compression ratio ( 25-27:1) to use the fuel more efficiently. ( modern diesels are down around 17:1 to reduce NoX.) Then we can build easy 40-65 mpg cars, which are completely rebuildable, non-disposible, no batteries to fill land fills with etc.

Now, maybe I'm way off base, but it illustrates the 'Yankee ingenuity' that is required for permanent, sustainable and CURRENTLY AVAILABLE alternative technologies.

And BTW, there 'aint nothing' you can mix to replace gasoline other than alcohols. Long chain carbons are very difficult to brew, although companies like GEVO ( another holding of ours) are prefecting producing isobutanols from waste et al, which are much better for use as road fuels. Less complicated chains=less cost and more carbon neutral. But the point truly is, in terms of internal combustion engines, the compression engines can use a much wider array of fuels versus ignition engines ( which have only two sources). Therefore, we should have more diesel engines, especially small 4-6 cylinder ones, in our national fleet. Its coming, but the current tech is optimized for petro diesel, not bio. But if clean diesel tech ( expensive) is what it takes to get Americans on the compression engine bandwagon, so be it. Here we do need to emulate our European friends a bit more.

And because we have the tech now to make diesel out of the waste that flows from your sewers. Meaning, we can brew biofuel out of almost anything.

You might have inferred that I am not big on battery cars, and you would be correct. If you look at the whole carbon footprint of an electric car purchase, use and disposal of batteries, the simple rebuildable high efficiency diesel, maybe in a hybrid chassis, blows straight batteries away. Yet, as electrics add to the portfolio diversity, they have merit. Mercedes is toying with diesel locomotive tech, which uses a small 2 cyl diesel to power the generators/batteries like a train. 65 mpg. Ingenuity.

Ingenuity. Something government programs typically get in the way of, particularly in the "cottage" format; hence my BHAI to petition the EPA to "set us free". Gov't funding has helped develop some of these new alt technologies like alcohols from algae ( which is a VERY promising tech as mentioned), but in a centralized context. Somehow, my intuition and Whigginess wants to explore the notion of disaggregating it, again, for national security purposes. Dont provide for us, just give us the freedom to provide for ourselves. Its much cheaper! AND its has social, societal side payments that centralized control systems cannot bring. ( think community co-ops, fuel sharing, etc - maybe I'll sell my biz and start a algae farm!)

Simply put, a more diversified, more domestic, and more 'self reliant' ( disaggregated) energy portfolio has the dual efffct of economic stimulus and greatly enhanced national security.

Reducing foreign dependance runs in line with the Founding Fathers' notion of separatism in foreign relations. To wit, do not show favoritism to foreign powers, and never become reliant on any, as it removes your self determination.

HELLO!!!!? Now, we can't wave a magic wand and get our foreign policy to that place overnight, but we sure as heck can start building the foundation of it under the guise/context of domestic economic rebuilding, as in the MWP Renewed American System.

And that is how the RAS, a work in progress, becomes a holistic, all encompassing map to securing the future of the Republic and ensuring the U.S. Constitution remains steadfast in the face of the next two hundred years of challenges.

Reducing foreign dependence equals a more secure Constitution for the future?

Yes. Absolutely. Welcome to the holsitic zen of the modern Whig.

Oh and MD, the disaggregated community-based system I envision ( concatenated onto the current distribution system and not replacing it totally - clearly) has the added security benefit of diversification - meaning the George Soros/John Paulson's of the world cannot affect the market nearly as much as a centralized, limited fuel source, market that we have today.

Algae futures anyone!? :)

we should drill into our oil fields to create a tranfer from foriegn oil. using "home grown" oil, we can loosen or end our dependancy on foreign oil and provide time for alternative sources to be created

While I don't think it is realistic to 'ween'(sic) ourselves completely of oil and our love affair with the automobile (I'm as guilty as anyone), we need to develop alternative methods of transportation. Mass transit systems within cities and between cities (rail) would require large overhauls of our current infrastructure as most cities, particulalry west of the Mississippi have been built with miles and miles of highway and it would cost alot to alter the physical and mental realities. But, if we don't look seriously at finding alternative methods of getting from place to place we could find ourselves, through resource depletion or unforeseen geo-political circumstances, with a highway system resembling that of North Korea: impressive, but where are the cars?

Yup, I truly hate those fuel hog cars!

www.chevelles.com/feature/october2000.html