State of the Union

[azazul]

About the time I got geared up to make fun of President Bush for saying nukular, he impressed me with his talk about alternatives to fossil fuels. But I wonder how soon any of them will actually come to fruition if at all.

[Мастер]

About the time I got geared up to make fun of President Bush for saying nukular, he impressed me with his talk about alternatives to fossil fuels. But I wonder how soon any of them will actually come to fruition if at all.

Well, I'd say people use fossil fuels because, by and large, they're the cheapest source of energy, and I wouldn't expect that to change until market forces, government policy (taxation or subsidy), or a combination thereof changes that. I would point out that Richard Nixon gave a speech about the need to beat an addiction to fossil fuels more than thirty years ago, but nobody seems to change his behavior much simply because the president says he should. Didn't see the speech - was it the usual talk about the need to invest in some technology to replace cheap sources of energy with expensive ones?

[azazul]

Link to speech

Here is where he talks about alternative fuels.

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas.

To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.

We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Considering the cost of securing the supplies,
oil isn't cheap at all.

[Мастер]

Considering the cost of securing the supplies,
oil isn't cheap at all.

How much would you estimate that costs per barrel?

Not entirely sure to what you refer, but a common criticism of the Iraq war was that it was a cynical ploy to grab the oil. If that's true, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper just to tell Saddam Hussein he could gas as many Kurds as he likes as long as he sells the oil at the market price. The US and UK spent a decade trying to prevent Iraqi oil from reaching the market, whereas the government of Iraq was trying just as hard to get it to the market...

N

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

US foreign policy and military policy is in part based
on securing and protecting strategic resources.
Stuff like titanium from South Africa and oil from Saudi Arabia.
You need tanks to do that, tanks need oil.
It's a vicious circle.

[Animal]

I heard these promises before in the '70s. I also remember the budget outlay the President promised us during the last State of the Union address. Nothing is going to change because the Greens won't allow nukes or drilling or refineries.

We could vastly reduce our foriegn oil dependancies by drilling in ANWR and the California coast. We could reduce the fuel supply problem by allowing more refineries. (And don't let anyone say that this is driven by the oil companies. California, at least, has so many laws regarding this that its practically impossible to make a new refinery here.) We cold also reduce the price of gasoline if the Feds said "This is the formula" instead of letting each state create their own vintage. (Then again, I'm a state's rights guy and this kind of bugs me.)

And let us not forget people like the Kennedy clan who prevented the creation of alternative energy in their area because the windmills "reduced" their view.

On another note from the Address; he at least made a mention if illegal immigration. What he said won't work, but at least it was brought up.

[Мастер]

US foreign policy and military policy is in part based
on securing and protecting strategic resources.
Stuff like titanium from South Africa and oil from Saudi Arabia.
You need tanks to do that, tanks need oil.
It's a vicious circle.

Just some back of the envelope calculations, but in 2005, I'm getting that US oil consumption was about 20 million barrels per day, and at the average crude price of $56 per barrel, the total value of that oil is very slightly smaller than the US military budget for one year. Of course, the military spends only a small fraction of its budget on oil. And the US military does many things besides run around oil producing countries with big guns; there are substantial US forces in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea, and so on, not to mention Afghanistan. Under the most generous assumptions, oil consumed to protect oil supplies is a pretty small fraction what is thereby protected, notwithstanding the English person at the IMDB who, under the comments section for Black Hawk Down, states that the US invaded Somalia, a country with no proven oil reserves, in order to get the oil, and then smugly declared that Yanks need to get their facts straight.

Most US oil comes from places like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Of course, the source doesn't really matter. If some country which sold, for example, all of its oil to China (I don't know whether such a country actually exists, but it's only a thought experiment) were to shut down its production, this would still affect the US, because China would now want to buy its oil from other sources, the price would rise, and US consumption would fall in response.

Now, if the motives of the administration for the US occupation of Iraq really were to secure the oil, then it's been a spectacular failure; the total value of Iraqi oil production recently has been a small fraction of the cost of the occupation. Furthermore, you don't just get to take the oil for free; there are extraction costs even if you don't have to pay the Iraqis anything. In my opinion, this was entirely predictable (and was probably predicted, but I'll have to check to see if I can confirm that). If Iraq were able to double its oil production, in which case it would become a larger exporter than Norway, it would still be a giant money losing proposition for the US. Hence, my earlier comment, which in effect was that, if I were an advisor to GWB (in case anyone is wondering, I'm not), and he told me he wanted to get Iraqi oil by any means possible, my advice would have been to talk to Tony Blair, agree to lift the embargo on Iraq, and then buy the oil.

Most resource sources don't need to be secured at all, because the country in which those resources are located is just as anxious to sell them as other countries (including the US) are to buy them. The president of Venezuela constantly makes noises about how the US is plotting to assassinate him or invade Venezuela (probably to get the oil, which they're already getting anyway); he has also recently threatened to stop selling Venezuelan oil to the US. I suppose he would sell it to Europe, China, Japan, and other such places, in which case these places would buy less from other sources, who would then sell to the US. So maybe some temporary dislocation and increased transportation costs, but this is really a threat that does not threaten. Iran and the US have been at loggerheads for decades, the US does not occupy Iran or otherwise secure Iranian oil fields, and yet Iranian oil reaches the world market and therefore benefits the US, even if the US doesn't buy it. Even the countries most hostile to the US are not willing to put themselves through a collapse that makes the great depression look like a picnic, just to spite the US.

If the US had the goal of securing oil fields by any means, regardless of any other considerations (being "nice", whatever), the only countries where I might possibly advice using military means would be Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates, and I'm not even sure I'd bother there. These countries have huge supplies, and don't need much protection; if any other oil producer were to fall off the market, I'd say the cost of restoring the supply militarily would vastly exceed the value of the oil (as it does in the Iraq case, whose partial fall from the world market was because of the US and UK). It's just not worth it, part of the reason the world isn't colonized by the great powers anymore. I would further point out that, to the extent that the US does use military force to protect oil supplies, the beneficiaries are not only the US, but every oil-consuming nation, even if they don't buy from these particular suppliers. Were I an advisor to the US government (again, I'm not), and were the US expending significant resources to protect oil supplies (and they are, but in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that much), I would encourge the leaders of the US government to question why they were providing this valuable service to the rest of the world free of charge...

Just my thoughts...

N

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Were I an advisor to the US government (again, I'm not)...

To bad you're not.

[Lance]

Were I an advisor to the US government (again, I'm not)...

To bad you're not.

Yeah, really.

It seems like anyone with a clue is too smart to ever run for office.

[azazul]

It seems like anyone with a clue is too smart to ever run for office.

People with a clue won't kiss ass enough to make it far in politics.

[MM_Dandy]

It seems like anyone with a clue is too smart to ever run for office.

People with a clue won't kiss ass enough to make it far in politics.

That is a great quote azazul. If I already didn't have four outstanding quotes in my sig (which is one too many in my opinion), I'd ask if I could add it.

[azazul]

Well, its actually a variation from another important lesson that I learned from South Park (Episode 119). In it they are choosing a school mascot and the choices are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, Stan doesn't want to vote because he doesn't like his choices but learns that only douches and turds make it that far in politics.

[Мастер]

Were I an advisor to the US government (again, I'm not)...

To bad you're not.

Yeah, really.

It seems like anyone with a clue is too smart to ever run for office.

Aw, you guys flatter me

I may be able to find something out about the speech, let me see what I can come up with...

N

[Мастер]

I went to an event where I figured I could get some inside information on what Bush's advisors are telling him, but my intended source did not show up. I'll keep trying...

N

[Lance]

You have sources inside the White House?

Cool.

[Мастер]

You have sources inside the White House?

Cool.

Well, indirectly. My source was an official who left the administration a little while back. Or, he would have been my source, had he shown up :)

N

[Candy]

I'm so mad right now.

President Bush promoted nanotechnology. I heard it with my own ears.

[Superluminal]

What have you got against Nanotech?

[azazul]

What have you got against Nanotech?

Dude, it is so gonna take over and stuff.

[Candy]

What have you got against Nanotech?

Nothing. I just heard President Bush (the man I voted for) say na-no-technology and his promotion of said science. I had to take a double "hear", because he doesn't quite speak perfect English (darn Texan accent). I was amazed that he actually promoted nanotechnology, and I'm more amazed that the press or "science" didn't pick up on what he was saying.

BOOST FOR SCIENCE IN MY BOOK, but they failed to hear it!

[Superluminal]

Oh, well, nevermind.