Blood and oil

Blood and Oil is the title of a  book written by Michael T. Klare, a Five College Professor of Program Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst. The Professor maintains that we will militarily have to expend our blood to protect our foreign oil suppliers if we do not prepare at home for the coming world oil shortage. 

I present a review and commentary herein about his book. My commentary will appear in blue type.

If anyone whishes to refute what I say here I invite them to E mail me and I will print it here.

Book Review

 The Professor discusses the measures we must take to effect a  "Paradigm Shift" of energy in order to reduce our dependence on imported oil.   

The Results of our Dependence on Mideast oil.

• Professor Klare asserts that our dependence on Mideast oil will be measured in blood: the blood of American soldiers who die in combat, and the blood of many other casualties of oil-related violence, including the victims of terrorism.

• In addition, the deployment of American combat forces around the globe will place an enormous drain on our economic, military, and political resources. The bill incurred by keeping troops in all areas of  the oil producing nations will easily exceed $150 billion per year.

• There will be vast sums of money sent abroad to pay for the imported petroleum. He estimates this to be $3.5 trillion between 2001 and 2025.

I agree with the above three facts and strongly assert that we should be taking action right now to prevent these from taking place.

The New Energy -- The Paradigm Shift.

The professor maintains that we will have to undergo what sociologists call a paradigm shift-- a complete rethinking of our basic outlook on this critical issue (energy). We will have to stop our consuming ways and live more simply.  

Energy self-restraint. The Professor maintains that the only solution to become less dependence on imported oil is to practice energy self-restraint. He states the following: "Because we cannot possibly compensate for diminished imports at home by increasing production at home  (even if we do tear up our last protected areas), the only sure way to reduce our oil imports is to reduce consumption of oil. There is simply no other way to achieve greater self-reliance in this energy sphere."

Since transportation accounts for two-thirds of our oil consumption it happens to be the easiest type of petroleum use to control. The Professor suggests four basic approaches to effect this control.

1. Improve fuel efficiency of vehicles.

2. Introduction of nonpetroleum fuels, mainly use ethanol.

3. New forms of auto propulsion especially hybrids, and hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

4. Wide spread use of mass transportation.

My Rebuttal

These suggestions hold very little promise of further significant fuel conservation in fueling transportation vehicles. They are not new suggestions, we see them often.  Consider the following:

1.0 Improvement of government mandated fuel efficiency of vehicles has been turned down just yesterday 7/19/05 by the congress. Representative Edward Markey offered an amendment that requires auto manufacturers reduce one mile per gallon  each year in gas consumption over a ten year period. This would untimely result in a fleet mileage of 37 mpg. It was turned down almost unanimously by both houses of congress.

2.0 Nonpetroleum fuels such as ethanol require more energy to produce than they give back when burned. See my Web page on Biomass. Ethanol will not reduce our dependence of foreign oil, its use will increase it.

BERKELEY, California, July 13, 2005 (ENS) - Using ethanol as an additive to make gasoline burn cleaner does more harm than good to the environment, finds a new report by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. The study concludes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than the energy that ethanol provides in a car engine.

We're embarking on one of the most misguided public policy decisions to be made in recent history," said Tad Patzek, professor of geoengineering at UC Berkeley's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Yahoo News   It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel than they give back as a fuel.

3.0 Hybrids are too expensive for the masses to buy. Also they are only fuel efficient around town, but not much more efficient for highway driving. Fuel cells are also too expensive for common usage. Just a niche player. And their efficiency is only 20 percent greater than the current Internal Combustion  engines. And  where do we get hydrogen? Certainly not from renewables which only supply three percent of our national energy mix at the present time.

4.0 Mass transportation is limited  in such a spread out country as the US. Bart is OK for San Francisco. In San Jose, the tenth largest city in the US, they tried extensive deployment of light rail trains. They are a total bust. Very few riders.  Same for busses. Mass transit is a drain on the economy. Almost none of them are self supporting. People must give up their freedom of movement with mass transit and they do not want to ride it any more than Robert Kenney Jr. does.

Hastening the Transition to a Postpetroleum Economy.

The four items above are more short term measures. For the transition to a Postpetroleum economy the Professor now expects to conserve oil further in order to reduce our oil consumption  as foreign supplies dwindle. Also he contends that we must reduce oil consumption to offset global warming.

The Professor does not think the President's energy plan will be sufficient for the eventual  switch to hydrogen propulsion and also it relies too  much on developing convention energy sources such as oil, coal and nuclear power. He asserts that we will have to speed up the introduction of renewables.  Also he derided VP Chaney as being the wrong person to formulate government energy planning because he worked for Halliburton, an oil production firm.

The professor believes that the energy plan should follow the impressive ten point Apollo Alliance, endorsed by John Kerry, Amory Lovins' plan for a hydrogen economy,  and the development of renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, etc. His environmentalists friends tell him that nuclear power produces highly poisonous wastes that are difficult (if not impossible) to store safely. Coal produces too much green house gases. He said the it would be foolhardy to rely on either nuclear power or coal.

To effect these plans the Professor believes that the government  has to put in place rules and mandate their application,  otherwise conservation and renewables will never get off the ground. 

Finally the Professor thinks we must embrace the new technologies to establish a secure, sustainable, and responsible energy system. To not do so would condemn ourselves to rising blood shed abroad and financial hardship at home.

 My Rebuttal

Well the Professor Klare sure has the faith of his convictions. He joins some religious groups, hard core environmentalists, many Democratic Liberals, and other liberal professors in setting us on a path of conservation and renewable energy systems to the detriment of fossil fuels and nuclear power.  I wonder if he ever talked to some professors at the Universities of California at Berkeley, Michigan, Iowa State, UCLA, and MIT, schools that teach nuclear power engineering courses. He might change his mind? Since he teaches at a University that does not  offer engineering and has very little science I must assume he has not been exposed to the real world of energy economics or technology.

Perhaps Professor Klare should contact Professor Sullivan S. Marsden of Stanford University. He wrote and article for the San Jose Mercury News 7/24/05   entitled Technology can help us cut the oil cord.

Professor Marsden Stated "Because technologies like nuclear power and clean-coal are realistic and practical, they are likely to move us toward real action."  Nowhere in Professor Marsden's article did he suggest that renewables would be useful.

Burning Wood.

It was recently reported that wood burning is to be New England's contribution as a renewable energy source because they said that there is no space for wind machines and the weather is not optimal for solar energy.

The  same report said that if they are successful in closing two nuclear power plants they will increase the output of wood power plants to make up the difference. To accomplish they this would have to burn 33 million tons of wood per year.

 Do you think they can get that much wood from the New England States?  They would have to denude their  forests to get this much wood. Not if the environmentalists have their way.\

Conservation. We will all conserve, but do we?

Consumers Slow to Get on 'Green' Bandwagon

Dec 26 - Daily Herald; Arlington Heights, Ill. When it comes to going green in home building, consumers often talk the talk, but would rather have granite countertops than extra insulated walls.

Despite the seemingly obvious environmental benefits, long-term financial advantages and the prospective 70 percent increase in heating costs this winter, the well-publicized and much-ballyhooed nationwide trend of building energy-efficient homes is slow to catch on with consumers in this area.

"There is more hype than action" with consumers, said Stephen East, home builder analyst with St. Louis-based research firm Susquehanna International Group LLP. Consumers are more interested in what is convenient and affordable now, rather than long-term gain, he added.

Lets review the current energy consumption pattern in the U. S, to evaluate whether the  Professor Klare's  renewables can really full fill our energy needs in the future.

U S Energy Consumption

This information was taken from the U. S. Energy Information Administration.

Table-- U S Energy Consumption by Energy Source -Quadrillion BTU

*Hydroelectric is a true renewable, but all sites have been used. Moreover, the environmentalists have requested that many hydro sites be taken down.

 ** Geothermal is not a true renewable. It only uses heat from the earth which plays out and the sites are then abandoned.

 *** The only real classification of renewables includes biomass ,solar, and wind. These are energized by the sun.

From the table it can be seen that we will lose 85% of our energy supply when the fossil fuels run out.  Fossil fuels will not last forever. The existing nuclear plants are over 30 years old and need to be replaced in future. That is another 8 percent lost.

The more we use biomass the more we remove them from the food chain. And ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives back during combustion. Solar is too expensive and too dilute to be practical. Wind is quite dilute and needs back up power systems when the wind does not blow. Production of energy from wind today is less than 25% of its ultimate design generating capacity. The wind will never be more energetic in the future. And there are no good wind sites east of the Mississippi River.

Currently renewable energy sources provide only three percent of our total energy mix. It ought to be wholly obvious to everyone that renewables can never supply anywhere near 94 percent of our energy mix as would be required under Professors Klare's plan.

Going out long term, where would people on this earth get energy in a millennium or so? Fossils will certainty be gone.

Nuclear power can supply mankind's needs as long as there are people on this earth. It is the only energy source we know of that can supply an infinite amount of energy.

We need to rapidly deploy nuclear power now for our electric power needs and also to generate hydrogen as the transportation fuel. This is the only way we will achieve energy independence, eliminate green house gases, and protect the environment. 

Epilogue

I will close this Web Page with statements from Peter Huber.

Peter Huber in his book, HARD GREEN, SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS,  makes it very clear that: "The whole back-to-nature, farmer's market theory of the Soft Greens, the entire psychological infrastructure of the movement, is anti-environmental. Taking five billion humans "back to nature" is the worst possible thing we could do, not only for the humans but for nature, too.

"However good their intentions, their results are wanton destruction of the environment. Stop using premium fuels in big power plants. Instead prefer the wood fuel the led to the deforestation of all of England. The Soft technology environmentalists advocate living off the land. Once again. burn wood, garbage, bacterial mats, sunflower oil, peanut shells, chicken dipping, etc. Spread expensive low yield solar PV’s and wind power over all of the land and make more dams . Wind power is dilute, produces little energy, and consumes large land masses. This is a prescription for destroying the land, not saving it.  Nuclear power is energy intensive, and the best source of energy to spare the land and atmosphere."

Return to top