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.
D Caldwell says:
February 26, 2012 at 6:56 am
“Polistra,
current production is up only because of actions taken by former administrations, not because of anything the current President did. From the point of securing exploration and production rights, it takes several years before the crude actually hits the market. But you already knew that….”
Well said. “Just the facts, Ma’am. Just the facts.”
As a former student of psychology (the study do algae), I too object to the pond scum insult. Only a few species would come close to that label. Algae can be incredibly beautiful components of ecosystems. Or fouling, noxious pests. They are diverse primary producers that capture sunlight and nutrients to live and grow. Some species are even farmed. After much research, though, nobody has found an effient way to turn them into a fuel source on a large scale. That is not likely to change.
DirkH says: February 26, 2012 at 11:38 am
Government research funding is in my eyes legit; subsidies are to be avoided. For 500 million you can buy 5,000 researcher man-years.
———————————————————–
Yes, but researchers don’t bring products to market. Engineering and manufacturing follow research but must be economically viable. I think we are not so far apart in our opinions. Now if you want to talk about the outrageously high subsidies for solar electricity in Germany, you’ll have no complaints from me.
But back to the argument that started all this climate hoopla. Government paid researchers are the ones advocating global economic suicide, based on government agencies directing their research funds be used toward “proving” the climate change effects of human generated CO2.
I scrolled thru the comments quickly but if nobody else pointed it out pond scum from millions of years ago is what gives us oil now.
[Jeb says:
February 26, 2012 at 10:17 am
Oil won’t last forever. We need to start developing viable, alternate energy sources.
I say that as an AGW skeptic.]
If the EPA allowed development of just the Piceance Basin shale oil near Meeker, CO. in an environmentally friendly surface mine, the USA has enough fuel for over 100 years. So enough time to further develop Thorium reactors and coal to gas, etc. So, i guess I kinda agree with you?
On a university campus, he says “made from a plant-like substance known as algae”.
Does this mean he is so ignorant that he has never heard of algae before, and thinks no-one else has either, or just that he thinks the staff and students at UNM are so ignorant that they have never heard of algae?
Not a ringing endorsement of US education in either case.
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.”
This comment reflects the difference in attidude when “they” are spending taxpayers $$$ versus private industry investing stock owners $$$. Its seems as though some believe that the government employees have no responsibility to propely vett proposals for technical and economic viability before they shovel the $$$ out the door. This poor work process encourages scam artists and the likes to make outrageous claims for their ideas. Since the administration has been shoveling so much out the door, it is impossible to have a proper technical review especially since the individuals likely lack any qualifications or are pressured by the administration to OK the transaction regardless of value. Of course it does not help that contributors to the election campaign get a pass on vetting process.
Be careful how you attack bad ideas. Using algae to produce fuel for cars, trucks, buses and planes is one of the most promising areas of bio-fuel research. It’s potentially the most efficient production method, many times more efficient than using corn–a very bad idea–as a feedstock.
I agree that President Obama’s war on domestic oil, gas and coal energy is one of the worst ideas ever and it should be illuminated and castigated at every opportunity. However let’s not drag down the very good idea of bio-fuels with it. Not all bio-fuel ideas are good ones, but algae seems to be one of the better ones.
And that $14 million invested in algae research? Paltry. We should probably invest more. Compare it to the the billions spent on fusion research–research that has yet to produce a single fusion reaction with net positive energy–or the billions spent on corn ethanol subsidies, or the hundreds of millions invested and lost on Solyndra and other boondoggles. Modest taxpayer investments in promising research? Yes. Expensive market-distorting subsidies? No.
President Obama is correct in saying that we could potentially replace a significant portion of our fuel economy with bio-fuels from algae. That is a scientifically accurate statement based on the current understanding of the technology. However he is dangerously wrong to limit domestic fossil fuel production long before bio-fuel technology has matured; before it’s out of the research phase even. We can’t replace fossil fuels with pixy dust.
Let’s be reasonable, careful, and nuanced in our attacks instead of exhibiting Obama Derangement Syndrome, a conservative analogue to the mindless Bush Derangement Syndrome attacks demonstrated by our opponents during the Bush years.
Jeb says: “Oil won’t last forever. We need to start developing viable, alternate energy sources.”
I agree. Let’s get our act together, get back into space, and figure out how to mine the hydrocarbons on the moons around the gas giants.
It is the plural…
Two items pertinent to this thread.
1. With current technology, and at current rates of use, there is something like 960 years reserve of petroleum. There is no point in developing new technologies to replace petroleum just because it will run out someday–the long time-frame makes present value of the replacement nil. If the replacement is exceedingly cheap, then that is a separate matter. I doubt it will be because…
2. Photosynthesis is so inefficient that enormous tracts of land and other inputs are required. Corn to ethanol to replace petroleum would need cultivation “from sea to shining sea”, with large inputs of fertilizers and work from fuels. Algae will not fare much better.
I’m surprised that WUWT put up this article. Extremely biased. It seems that using “pond scum” as a derogatory for algae is a replacement for rational arguments. I don’t agree with all of the administration’s policy, or previous administration’s policy, but to say that spending a few million $ on algae research is a massive mistake is ridiculous. $14Million is a drop in the bucket, and we need more basic research into all areas of energy. We may have enough oil now, but we will run out — it’s just a question of when. If we don’t start working on alternatives now, they won’t be there when we need them.
Lauren,
Re “the billions spent on corn ethanol subsidies, or the hundreds of millions invested and lost on Solyndra and other boondoggles. Modest taxpayer investments in promising research? Yes. Expensive market-distorting subsidies? No.”
One might agree with your statement, except as you indicate, the Government it is obviously unable to make sound technical, energy, development decisions with their “boondoggles”. What makes one think they would do any better if we allowed them to throw $ 50 billion at algae?
The USA is now over $15 trillion in debt and we have thrown billions evey year at grean energy with little return except higher electricity rates and dead birds. Maybe we should learn from Spain, Germany, UK and others who are just beginning to rethink their committment to grean energy.
Based on my experience, I agree it takes time to develop new energy sources, but the administration’s has placed an urgency to replace fossil fuels which has resulted in picking losers, excessive spending, and waste with no results. This is not a “war time” rush, the unrealistic timetables have no justification. The rush to production of commercial cellulosic ethanol has been a huge failure, yet the gasoline blenders are forced to mix unavailable cellulosic ethanol or pay a fine. The administration fix is to double down on subsidies rather than identify and rectify the fundamental problem if possible. Next. they will decide to mandate unavailable fuel from algae. They are already requiring the military to buy $14/gal fuel from a subsidized plant while cutting their budget.
We cannot allow the government to continue on this economically destructive path with false promises, just because they have an illogical negative bias against fossile fuels. Fossile fuel production is being artificially constrained in the US to make us believe we need expensive alternative fuels, just look at the number of permits on federal land in the last several years. The private energy companies have shown they can find more fossil energy in the US, if the government would open up areas where rich resources are known to exist and stop unnecessary EPA action.
The government and alternative fuel lobby have over hyped the promise of near term replacement of fossil fuels time after time and have little to show for it. Their credibility is shot. I seriously doubt that algae will contribute any meaningful amount of liquid energy within decades, if ever, without huge subsidies and pain at the pump, hope I’m wrong. That said I support research and engineering activities at a significantly reduce scale until something really proves to have potential based on a comprehensive audit and review by qualified experts, not university professors and labs looking for more grant money. Commercial cellulosic plants were built before the technology was ironed out. Guess what, they have failed or went Bankrupt.
@catcracking, I understand your point about government debt and the huge boondoggles like Solyndra, but you lump all research funding in with Solyndra-like disasters as if they’re the same thing and they’re not. The half billion wasted on Solyndra was a loan, not a research grant.
Interestingly, the TARP rescue package put together by President Bush and Congress was also a loan–up to $700 billion–but it didn’t end up being a disaster. It arguably saved our economy and banking system from a real disaster, and it was virtually all paid back within a year or two. Why did this succeed where the Solyndra loan failed? First of all, TARP wasn’t politically motivated. Solyndra was. Secondly, the TARP loan went to institutions with a long and successful track record who were temporarily struggling because of the huge economic downturn. Every analysis of Solyndra available to the Department of Energy, the President, and his advisers at the time showed it was going bankrupt because of its own business model. No one should have loaned them money. The President pushed for it anyway. It was cronyism for political gain, pure and simple.
Research funding is a different animal than half-trillion dollar loans to failing companies like Solyndra, GM and Chrysler. Government funding for research into cancer, AIDs, agricultural, transportation, energy, military technology and so forth require detailed submissions of procedures and predicted outcomes and are subject to competition and review by experts in the field. Lots of research doesn’t get funded because it doesn’t look viable on paper.
As for algae-based bio-fuel research specifically, we’re talking about $17 million, not $50 billion (where did you come up with that?). Most experts are excited about the research because it’s potentially much more efficient and cost-effective than any other bio-fuel technology. If we stopped wasting taxpayer money on corn ethanol subsidies, we’d have BILLIONS of dollars for pure research into not only much more promising fuel technologies, but cancer, AIDs, and other things. Same with cellulosic ethanol subsidies. I repeat. Let’s fund research. Let’s NOT subsidize technologies that aren’t viable on their own in a free market.
As for predictions about how much fuel algae-based bio-fuels will contribute in coming years or decades; neither of us is qualified to make a meaningful guess about it. That’s what the research will discover.
Try to keep in mind another important thing about research grants. The total amount spent each year is less than what we spend on foreign aid–one of our smallest budget categories. It’s not foreign aid or research that’s breaking the federal budget. Everyone knows it’s the huge growth in social program spending. Do we need to make cuts in EVERY area to balance the federal budget? Absolutely not. Let’s fix or get rid of the programs that are unsustainable. There are lots of good ideas about how to do this. Paul Ryan’s budget that the House passed last year is one of them.
A little archival searching at MIT’s Technology Review would yield more useful information about the current state of research into employing algae to generate hydrocarbons. I see little other than unsupported assertion here – and a generous application of rhetorical ruses we’d never accept from AGW enthusiasts.
Why, at a ‘scientific’ site, is this brand of boilerplate tolerated?
I love the idea of biofuel producing algae, but….
Having grown up in Florida, I worry about the environmental impact of when (not if) the algae starts growing in the waterways. It would probably be toxic to the normal fauna that eat algae and so would its byproduct. We might have the burning Lake Erie scenario all over again.
In the meantime, I still encourage everyone to request Florida python fritters and python boots. Hunt those to extinction by demand in the market 😀
Jer0me says:
February 25, 2012 at 7:14 pm
You are ignoring the time value of money. That is, money today, is more valueable than money some time in the future.
In other words, the money saved by selling the oil now can be invested in many things today, and used to create much wealth. Money in the future is just a promise. How do you know politicians 10 years from now won’t be just as craven as today’s politicians.
G A Doss says:
February 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Yes the fall of Solyndra was do to their lack of a viable business plan. However, members of this administration invested almost $1B in that company, even after they were told by internal experts that Solyndra did not have a sound business plan and was unlikely to survive.
Several commentors have hurt feelings about the post using the term pond scum seeing it as biased or derogatory. I haven’t seen anyone raise any objections regarding Obama’s calling drilling for oil a “gimmick”.
Lauren
As one who follows the biofuel industry closely and enjoyed significant consulting fees as an engineer, I am constantly frustrated by the hyp put forth by the Administration and many in congress. I agree with you on many fronts, but not on government subsidies to ventures that I think have little chance of sucess. Unfortunately my skeptic view has been correct to date (think cellulosic fuels).
Please read the below extracted from the Biofuels digest that announces a NEW $14 million grant for algae.
“In Washington, the Obama Administration outlined a new $14 million round of R&D grants for algal biofuels, as the US President highlighted algal biofuels in a speech at the University of Miami which focused on energy policy.
In Miami, the President said: “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in the United States. And that means greater energy security. That means lower costs. It means more jobs. It means a stronger economy.”
In today’s Digest, we look at the new $14M round of funding – criticism of the US algal biofuels R&D program from the blogosphere, as well as Newt Gingrich; an analysis from OriginOil showing the possibilities for $2.28 per gallon algal fuels – and some opportunities for you to join in on the discussion. What’s hype and what’s real – today at biofuelsdigest.com. ”
Do you think this is responsible leadership, claiming that we COULD replace 17% of our imports with a technology that will take years to develop , if ever? I don’t. It is intentially misleading and a diversion now that cellulosic has failed miserably.
I knew that the loan gurantees were never going to be paid and unfortunately that is happening all over. Not just Solyndra, Range fuels, etc etc. They are the taxpayers responsibility since few will ever get repaid.
FYI the $50 billion is the best number that I can find that represents the total annual waste that is expended for alternative energy. If you have a better one please help me.
I agree that much of the TARP money was returned especially by the Banks that did not want to participate in the first place, so the negative comments are not totally fair. UNfortunately as the money was repaid it was used illegaly as a slush fund for contributors that will never be repaid.
G A Doss on February 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm said:
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…”
You elect me to office. I take your money (taxes) and give it to my buddies to start a business. That business fails, gives less than no return in investment, and you have no problem with that? I guess P. T. Barnum was correct.
Actually, I don’t have a problem with scientists figuring out ways to do this. Yes it would be an expensive niche fuel, BUT it may have some off-world uses or it may be good just to put the pressure on the OPEC nations and oil speculators.
Exxon-Mobile inked a $600 million deal with Craig Venter to develop a GM algae for them in 2009. As of now $300 million has been turned over to Venter’s company. Exxon-Mobile expects it will invest several billion and have refineries producing mass quantities of biofuel within 5-10 years.
Fercrisakes Caruba you’re complaining about Obama putting $17 million in the kitty when ExxonMobile has put in $300 million so far and still going?
[OK Dave, I’m snipping the insults. ~dbs, mod.]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-algae-feed-the-world-and-fuel-the-planet
Here’s a real article by a real science journalist.
–more at link above
@catcracking, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about subsidizing business ventures in bio-fuels or whatever. I completely agree. Thanks for clarifying the $50 billion amount. It’s your estimation of the yearly cost of subsidies of alternative energy schemes. I’ve said it twice…now three times, that we should NOT subsidize bio-fuel ventures or technologies (or any business ventures) that are not viable on their own in a free market. You seem to keep lumping research funding (R&D) by the federal government into the same category as subsidies and they are completely different. As I pointed out, our spending on research–of all forms including AIDS, cancer, stem cell, bio-fuels, alternative energy, etc.–is a small fraction of the $50 billion you suggest we’re spending to subsidize alternative energy companies. One more time: Federal funding of research is a GOOD thing, including the $17 million President Obama mentioned for bio-fuel from algae. Federal SUBSIDIES of non-viable companies and technologies of ANY kinds is BAD.
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 . . . . . .
You have obviously missed the 535th iteration of The Lesson, in the form of Solyndra: Government Bureaucrats are expert at feeding Taxpayer Money, AKA “Resources” into an Incinerator. . . . .
Solyndra got ‘Free Money’ because a politician(s) needed: a. an i$$ue, and b. friend$, or he had friend$ and THEY had an i$$ue. Solyndra needed ‘Free Money’ because there is no such thing as ‘Free Money’ outside of Washington DC and politics in general, and the people who have money that isn’t ‘Free’ WOULD NO LONGER TOUCH Solyndra.
Capitalist market mechanisms free of distortion and corruption are effective resource allocation tools . . . . but they do fence off too much political (for the power), and ‘advocacy’ (for the power, by way of a Cause) pasture. . . . the answer is to exploit the political and advocacy avenues to corrupt and distort the market mechanisms.
The New Robber Barons are those in, and about to leave Government, and their friends.
Of course there is a Nascent alternative to The Government you are familiar with, it’s called The UN. Review the above and append with whatever exponent you think appropriate.
“All Politics is local”. Tip O’Neill, Democrat (hard to believe, now).