Guest post By Alan Caruba
Between 1955 and 1959 I was a student at the University of Miami. It was perhaps the best four years of my life and remembered fondly for its combination of fun and learning. On Thursday, February 23, President Barack Obama was on the UM campus to tell the biggest bunch of lies about energy in America I have heard compressed into a single speech.
This President has already set records wasting taxpayer’s money on a range of so-called clean energy and renewable energy “investments”. Solyndra, the solar panel company that went bust and stuck taxpayers with a half-billion in loan guarantees is just one of those “investments” and I keep waiting for someone to ask why public funds are being flushed down the toilet when, if the companies involved were viable, they could not raise private venture capital?
“And we’re making investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance known as algae,” said the President. “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17% of the oil we important for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.”
All politicians put the best face on their pet projects, but to flat-out lie about one of the most idiotic ideas to replace oil when this nation has enough oil, domestically and offshore, known and estimated to exist, defies the imagination. It is an insult to every one of us. And Obama wants to pump $14 million into algae, otherwise known as pond scum.
It is very likely that, like the solar panel and other “clean energy” scandals that we know about and will learn about as time goes alone, the average American is unaware that, by 2008, there were fifteen (15) algae startup companies. When I heard Obama talk about algae, I could practically hear the campaign fund-raising bundlers scurrying like rats from company to company.
To those of you not intimately and well informed about algae, it is that organic stuff that gathers in ponds and swamps and, in aggregate, is politely called “plant-like organisms that are usually photosynthetic and aquatic.” It is scum. It has no roots, stems, or leaves. It is scum.
In a marine environment it is called seaweed. Algae have chlorophyll and can manufacture their own food through photosynthesis. Algae, the scientists tell us, produces more oxygen than all the plants in the world in addition to being an important food source for marine creatures as diverse in size as shrimp and whales.
The notion that millions would be “invested” to turn algae into fuel ranks just above the idiocy of converting thousands of acres of corn into ethanol instead of food.
Barack Obama has been lying about so many things for so long I doubt he even knows when he is lying or even cares. It’s not enough to dismiss this saying that all politicians lie because many do not. Some in Congress right now are desperately trying to get the public in general and voters in particular to understand that America has more debt per capita than Greece. We are on the precipice of financial collapse and Barack Obama just wants to spend more and more and more; some of it on pond scum.
During his UM speech, he derided those who have for decades been saying that America has to allow oil companies access to its vast reserves in order to reduce our dependence on imported oil. “We’ve heard the same thing for thirty years,” he said. He’s right. And administrations and Congress have blocked access for just as long. It’s our oil!
He went further, though. “It means that anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about—or isn’t telling you the truth.” That’s rich, coming from someone who lies almost as often as he exhales. Oil is a global commodity. The more that’s available to the market, the lower its cost. Domestic oil always costs consumers less than imported oil!
The truth is that oil production on federal lands declined last year by eleven percent on lands controlled by the Obama administration and six percent for natural gas in 2011.Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than forty percent (40%) compared to ten years ago. The Obama administration, in 2010, issued the lowest number of onshore leases since 1984. In 2011, it held exactly one offshore lease sale.
On February 24, one day after the Obama speech, the U.S. Geological Survey released a report on the amount of oil estimated to exist in the North Slope of Alaska. “The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.
In a 2008 Wall Street Journal interview, Obama’s Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, famously said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.” Anyone who does not believe this administration has a deliberate policy of achieving this goal is just not paying attention. Remember that the next time you fill your car’s gas tank.
This is the same President who stopped the building of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada that would provide more oil for our refineries and not cost the American taxpayer one penny to build. This is the same President who imposed a moratorium on oil from the Gulf of Mexico even after the courts told him to remove it. It caused the loss of an estimated 12,000 jobs while rigs departed for Cuba, Brazil and Mexico.
Between now and November, the President will be out campaigning and telling the same lies. The rise in the cost of oil isn’t just a seasonal thing though prices have usually gone up in the summertime when people travel more for vacations. It’s up because the Iranians are closing in on making their own nuclear weapons and their own missiles to hit, not just Israel, but the U.S. It’s up because it is essential to ensure that the tankers oil-producing nations around the Persian Gulf can enter and exist it via the Strait of Harmuz.
The world isn’t running out of oil and is not about to run out. The Earth floats on an ocean of oil despite the rising demand from Asia and other developing nations. To replace foreign oil with algae-based fuel would require a chemically-controlled tank the size of the State of Colorado, about 69.3 million acres.
In 2010, Obama’s mandated biofuel production was less than ten percent of foreign oil imports. It is impossible for biofuel of any description to replace foreign oil imports; just as it is idiotic to pay $41,000 for an electric car when you can have a gasoline-fueled car for around $16,000.
Pond scum is not a rational substitute for oil and spending $14 million on its production as a fuel is beyond absurd. It is the same confidence game as selling “carbon credits” to avoid the “global warming.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rod Ker writing in the Saturday Telegraph Motoring tells how fuel companies in the EU are having to add a percentage of ethanol or methanol (Bio fuel) to petrol to keep the greenies happy. The problem is that on older (and some new) cars it rots or encourages the degradation of many parts of the fuel system made of zinc, brass, copper, aluminium and seals, hoses and tanks made of GRP, cork, polyurethane and epoxy resins.
He comments that in the US law suits are flying where fuel systems on motor bikes have degraded it also causes problems on boats and agricultural machinery, and as the percentage of these goes up in the petrol (gas to you across the pond) it will start to affect more and more vehicles.
So even if you can afford to fill your tank with fuel it won’t get you anywhere.
James Bull
The problem with all these wonderful alternative energy ideas is the government’s absolutely abysmal record of picking winners in the corporate world, which is totally unsurprising when your primary selection criteria is the amount of campaign contributions kicked in by the idea’s backers. If we do decide as a society that the government needs to play a role in advancing these technologies it should be done by offering the money in the form of a series of substantial X prize like contests where the goals are laid out but methods are entirely open ended. A recent example of the efficacy of this technique occurred in the aftermath of Deep Horizon debacle in the Gulf. There was much chagrin at the poor quality of the equipment available to skim the leaked oil from the ocean surface and a large cash prize was offered for the first to come up with a design that doubled the efficiency of the equipment available. The prize was collected in fairly short order by a design that not only met, but greatly exceeded that goal, entirely without loan guarantees or other subsidies
No one thinks less of Obama than I … and I am a huge proponent of using the fossil fuels we have in abundant supply. I could probably be accused of benefiting from big oil, as I’m looking at several different projects in the Bakken oil shale region.
That said the point people often miss is that these alternative fuels are renewable.
Some, like algae, are far from large scale commercial viability. Pretty much all only a partial solution. But the preponderance of the evidence shows we will run out of fossil fuels eventually. Not in our lifetime, but possibly in our children’s.
And each of these alternative offer the possibility at least of a partial, interim solution – that will extend the life of the remaining fossil fuels we do have.
When I briefly looked into it, algae does have promise – again as a partial solution at least. An advantage is it is pretty easily grown and harvested. And it does not, as someone noted necessarily take huge amounts of land. Rather it can be grown vertically as shown here. Algae
I don’t have a giant problem with modest amounts being spent on legitimate research into the process and its viability.
This is not an endorsement of any kind – just a simple statement.
Here is a Wiki on Algae – I haven’t read it or research it much – but it should be a starting point for people to learn a bit and make educated decisions on whether to look further.
I think the important point – no matter how conservative you are, or how much you support the use of the fossil fuels we have – is that doing nothing to research renewable fuel options, to help extend our fossil fuel reserves, is just not a viable or smart option.
Flame away … 😉
I forgot to include the link for the above story
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/11/private-competition-and-prizes-vs.html
Al Gore has a Nobel too … 😉 ….
btw – those links tom were pretty much all regarding crop/land based bio-fuels … algae proponents have pretty much abandoned large scale land based (meaning open ponds etc)
From the little research I have done, pond scum IS – assuming it can reach commercial viability – significantly “greener” than other current renewable fuels.
If Obama fell into a scum filled pond, itd be nigh on impossible to differentiate the two.
I await the develoment of a genetically modified algae designed for fuel production which then gets into the oceans and becomes unstoppable thereby destroying all other life on Earth.
“And we’re making investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance known as algae,” said the President.
“This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedemir. Explain again how sheeps’ bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.”
There is a cheap effective method to convert algae to petroleum but it takes many millions of years.
I thought this was a science blog. An awful lot of political demagoguery going on here, it seems to me. I’m no fan of the current US administration, but how about we focus on facts, folks?
Haven’t looked at the issue in huge detail however $14 million isn’t much for a tech. with huge potential.
1) Algae can be used to treat wastewater on land that can be used for very little else.
2) As well as the oil, the rest of the material can be used for animal feed, which is going to be needed given stresses animals place on food supply.
If seems to me like the tech has the potential to solve a number of issues and provided the burden of support infrastructure can be minimized.
That said I don’t think govt should be picking individual company winners but if a small amount of R&D money is accessable via milestones (or prizes), it could be a good incentive. I would be against spending billions, because the larger the sums the larger the potential for corruption.
re: raising money, venture capital.
Only happens when the banker or investor believes there’s some small chance of a return. Not because the competitors conspire to kill the new entrant by telling banks not to loan or else they will take their business elsewhere (at least in our still somewhat free society).
And as long as the marginal cost of production of then next barrel of Saudi oil loaded onto a tanker is less than $5 (used to be $2, but the dollar is worth less nowadays), and the cost of the next U.S. mined coal-generated kilowatt hour at the customer demarc is less than a penny (because U.S. coal hasn’t increased in price), no sane banker would invest a nickel. Why, because as soon as there’s any competition at all in any of these markets, the price will drop towards the cost of production, not what the market can bear today. A buggy whip was never cheaper than when Ford started mass production. Same will be true in energy if/when there’s a true competitor to fossil fuels. In unregulated markets, profit is not a natural condition.
How likely is it that the readers here didn’t already know what little content there was in this polemic? Algae is scum, the president is a liar and has an unrealistic corrupt energy policy that is aimed towards pleasing his base than taking advantage of the opportunities to increase the prosperity and energy security of the country. I gathered as much from Fox News. Disappointing post.
Here is a way to make a really bad idea good.
1. Build large ponds to grow algae
2. Feed algae to carp
3. Grind up carp to make fish meal
4. Feed fish meal to farmed Atlantic salmon
5. Blacken salmon in a cast iron pan and serve with pineapple salsa
G A Doss says:
February 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm
“Another article based on ignorance and bias. It seems odd to blame the government for
any failure of Solyndra, as private enterprise ran it. The failure was a lack of business
acumen and ethics. You can offer the public opportunity, but it’s up to the public to act
responsibly.”
Wait a moment. In your eyes, the government offers the public an opportunity? Didn’t you forget who gave the government his money first? I think it’s the other way round, G A Doss.
BTW, is this you?
http://pubget.com/paper/8326323
In that case, you probably hope for research grants to have a go at tinkering with Algae genoms.
There’s one guy who has a pretty clear idea of a timeline that can tell us when we will have mastered our own biology, when we will use nanotech to enhance our bodies further, and at which point in time the total of computer capacity will exceed the computational power of our brains: Ray Kurzweil, of course.
Now what does he have to say about capturing sunlight and using it for our energy needs?
“We will meet all of our energy needs with nano-engineered (engineered at the molecular scale) solar panels that are very efficient and inexpensive. We’ll need to capture only about 3 parts in 10,000 of the sunlight that falls on the Earth to meet all of our projected energy needs.”
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0709/gallery.whats_ahead.moneymag/5.html
No Algae. You see, G A Doss, that’s the competition, and I am sure Kurzweil is right here. PV panels come down in price slowly, no matter whether we complain about Solyndra or other subsidies, the price drops to a half within 5 to 10 years. And the efficiency is 10-15% ATM and improving. Kurzweil expects 2035 to be the point in time where we can meet all our energy needs with solar power this way.
Some British researchers tinker with coatings that could improve the efficiency beyond the theoretical maximum of 34& for an unijunction cell by catching UV photons and re-emitting several photons in the visible range.
You won’t get your DNA tinkering up to speed fast enough to compete with those folks. They already have a huge efficiency advantage, they’re continually improving the cost-efficiency, and they don’t even have to get rid of the water in the end product because the end product of their technology is already electricity.
The only advantage of Algae would be that it grows by itself and doesn’t come out of a factory, but how much of an advantage is that really? The tubes in which you keep the Algae will have to come out of factories. All the refinement processes, whether it’s drying or distilling or whatever will be technical processes done by some sort of machinery. You won’t engineer a giant Algae, all biologically, with a tail end out of which oil drips for the taking so we only need to hold up a bucket.
If PV is expensive at the moment, Algae is surely very much more so. I didn’t start talking about the cost of the land needed or the water needed and how you get it where you need it, or the competition with food production.
Maybe you should avoid that field. It will only be frustrating for the gene engineers to be completely overrun by the PV engineers. Better stick to curing disease. That’s where we need genetic engineering now.
Quote from the article:
“It’s up because the Iranians are closing in on making their own nuclear weapons and their own missiles to hit…”
Bogus. Get your facts straight. Nothing of the above is fact – it’s just fiction.
Partisan silliness. This particular subsidy program was instituted by Bush The Son and continued by Obama.
If you really want to look for differences between Bush and Obama, look at the increased domestic oil and gas production under Obama, and the first new approval for a nuke plant. Bush promised to do those things but failed to do them. Obama promised to do wrong things but actually did the right things.
My dad used to say: “If you want Democrat policies vote for a Republican. If you want Republican policies vote for a Democrat.” He was right.
If this idea were technically and economically viable, it should be able to attract private capital without government “investment.”The only way private investment seems to get into stuff like this is the assumption that government funding will cover their investment. If it can’t stand alone, it isn’t viable.
Haven’t we heard all this before? Back in the Ford and Carter administrations we were hearing about tire inflation, weatherproofing, solar energy and pie-in-the-sky alternate fuels. Has anyone noticed that the emperor’s new clothes came from his father’s closet? Does anyone other than the government “invest” without a prospective and fund without a detailed cash flow and ROI?
I read about the vertical algae tanks a couple of years ago. I’ve also heard Exxon has invested around $500 million into algae biofuel development. I wouldn’t be completely negative.
I don’t think of it as a replacement for oil as much as a replacement for other biofuels and diesel. This would not require the land that corn does and the tanks could be located near CO2 sources such as power plants to enhance the growth. I think there’s a lot of potential here to augment our energy sources and reducing the demand for oil could lead to lower prices.
Bob says:
February 26, 2012 at 5:07 am
“If it can’t stand alone, it isn’t viable. …
Does anyone other than the government “invest” without a prospective and fund without a detailed cash flow and ROI?”
If you stopped all interference with the market, all new power plants would be gas power plants at the moment. Which would be fine with me; as that would happen nearly everywhere on the globe, after a while the price of gas would rise and slowly there would be a shift to another source of energy.
ONLY the government can fund nonviable technologies if success is so far away that investors can’t risk it.
A government should not pretend, though, that these technologies are the next panacea. WE DON’T KNOW. THAT’S WHY WE LET THE GOVERNMENT FUND IT. And funding for such uncertain projects should of course be strictly limited – they’re all potshots.
Algae would be a decent alternative…..if it wasn’t so hard and expensive trying to keep it from becoming contaminated
ah but are you forgetting??
Al Gore is now invested heavily in Algal Fuels!
after saying the farmers of wherever hes from made him promote biofuels
and after he took funds out of biofuels himself.(before the truth got out of course)
I am surprised nobody made the leap to http://www.jouleunlimited.com/. And there is a British firm working on a hydrogen fuel, although I can’t remember the name. (I’ll find it and post.) I believe strongly in man’s ability to innovate.
Here it is: http://www.cellaenergy.com/ There is just so much exciting stuff going on, whether or not it ever becomes viable, who knows? But why be a naysayer? My first computer was an Apple III. Now I have more computing power on my I Phone. Who woulda thunk?
Sorry, this sounds like a political rant instead of a science discussion. The merits of this idea could have been worded so as to not be a political diatribe.