Aug 25 2008
Reducing U.S. Oil Imports by More than 90%
As I was browsing web pages of past instructors (Dr. Rabbit’s post got me all nostalgic), I came across a link to this interesting simulation of U.S. oil policy. It’s a bit old, 2005, but it still provides a decent method of estimating how specific policy initiatives might affect oil demand.
It provides a way to select specific policies, and dates for their onset that will affect oil demand in the United States. It then tells you if your specific policies will meet your goal for reducing oil imports. I’ve included below the specific policies that would be needed, according to this simulation, to reduce oil imports by 90% by 2025. The format for the input is in the form of a section of the State of the Union. The parts that could be changed I’ve highlighted. In his 2006 State of the Union, President Bush set the goal of reducing our oil imports by 75% by 2025.
Inset image credit: user jasonskinner on Flickr.
The energy policy section of my hypothetical State of the Union Speech:
Mr. Speaker, Vice President, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens.
Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil.
America must reduce its dependence on imported oil by 90% by 2025.
To accomplish this goal, I propose the following Advanced Energy Initiatives:
1. Alternative Fuel Vehicles
75% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. will run on cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, fuel cells, or other non oil-based fuel. My alternative fuel initiative will begin this year. Car manufacturers will have to reach these targets 10 years after the program starts.2. Increase Vehicle MPG with Hybrids
Beginning this year car makers will sell hybrid cars, trucks, and SUVs so that the average gas mileage of all new vehicles sold grows from 25 MPG to 60 MPG After the program starts, car manufacturers will have to 10 years to achieve this MPG target.3. Car Pooling
Beginning this year I ask all Americans, through a nationwide carpool and conservation program, to reduce the average miles you drive your vehicles by 50%. I believe we can achieve this goal within 5 years after the program begins.4. Reduce Jet Fuel Use
I ask the airline industry to use new, fuel-efficient technologies to reduce jet fuel usage by 50% within 10 years starting this year.5. Reduce Diesel Fuel Consumption
I ask the trucking and train industries to cut their diesel fuel usage by 50% within 5 years starting this year through by converting to alternative fuels such as biodiesel and electricity.6. Lower Thermostat
Beginning this year I call on Americans this year to lower their thermostats during the winter by 10 degrees. If we wear an extra layer of clothing at home during the winter, I believe we can achieve this goal within 5 years after my thermostat reduction initiative starts.7. Residential Conservation
Starting this year I ask America’s home and small businesses owners to examine ways that they consume oil and to reduce their consumption of petroleum products by 50% with the objective of meeting our goal within 5 years.8. Reduce Industrial Oil Use
I ask our nation’s industries to replace their use of petroleum with synthetic alternatives by 50% within 5 years starting this year.9. Electricity Generator Replacement
Starting this year American power generators will replace 100% of their petroleum-using electricity generators with natural gas, solar and wind technologies, and nuclear energy within 20 years.
The output shows which policies were most and least effective in reducing oil demand. In my example, the most effective policy was requiring that 75% of all new vehicles be powered by alternative fuel. This resulted in a savings of 4.16 Million barrels of oil per day.
The least effective policy was lowering the thermostat. It only resulted in reducing oil imports by 0.39 Million barrels per day. I largely left this in to show how little such symbolic changes have on actual energy use. There was no option that showed how much switching to CFL bulbs will have. I imagine it is small, but I haven’t even attempted to look. (A link from a reader would be really nice…)
That is not to say that I personally don’t conserve energy by doing these things. I almost use CFL bulbs exclusively now. The bulbs in the bathroom are incandescent, but how much time does one really spend in the bathroom. During the summer, my air conditioning is set to 82F. I have experimented this summer with raising it to 84F, but that is a little too warm for me. During the winter, my heater gets turned on for a few weeks at the maximum. The temperature has been set in the 60s. I plan to experiment this winter to find a good fit between comfort and minimum temperature.
The simulation also offered an option to reduce demand by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I chose not to include this option in the proposed energy policy because in my view the problem is the providing a method of sustainable energy, not the fact that we import a large quantity of oil.
I am also aware that the policies outlines above will not actually happen unless there is a dramatic change in the oil market in the next few years. Oil at more than $200 per barrel might do the trick. Although even at that price, energy is incredibly cheap.
In the past, I thought that separating the “climate problem” from the “energy problem” would result in the most productive action for both. After a while reading the bloghorrea, especially WC, MT, and the Global Change newsgroup, I’m starting to think that we don’t have a “climate problem”; there is only an “energy problem”, and a manifestation of this is the “climate problem”.
Therefore, the solution is not to solve the “climate problem”, which would be equivalent to a doctor treating the symptoms of a disease instead of finding and treating the underlying disease. But instead, focusing on a way to provide sustainable energy to 9 billion people, because the current policy of extracting fossil fuels from the earth is not sustainable.
I haven’t thought this through entirely, and am still organizing my own thoughts. But the question is this: do we have a climate crisis, or do we have an energy crisis? Or both?
(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...Related Posts:
4 Responses to “Reducing U.S. Oil Imports by More than 90%”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
The best fit between comfort and minimum temperature in the winter is called a sweater. Looks good too. OTOH CFLs impact electricity use which mostly is coal driven in the US, not by oil. The nature of the beast is such that nukes (20% base load in US)run best at full load and are unlikely to be powered down first.
It is interesting to go back and trace old teachers.
… in my experience, when in the States I need that sweater in summer as well (inside). There ought to be a choice to turn the a/c up 10 degrees as well …
Do we have an climate crisis? Sure, why not? But before we could call it a crisis we would need to know at what level CO2 concentration the crisis would occur.
Do we have a energy crisis? Sure, why not? We are a society based on burning of fossil fuels, and by definition fossil fuels will eventually run out. The question is when they begin to run out?
As you can see, when the crisis will occur is the key question to both of these questions. If the climate crisis occurs before the energy crisis, we have both crisis to contend with. If the energy crisis occurs first, we only have one crisis.
I was a bit suprised to find a paper which addressed the issue of peak fossil fuels and climate change. Even though I have questions about their choice of “peak theories” to illustrate, I do find the report interesting.
Its a bit disappointing as a site because it seems to think the only possible measures are very minor ones. I didn’t bother trying them out - maybe this is the point?
Surely in fact what will happen is that oil will rise in price, as supply falls and demand rises. Wages and profits will not rise, certainly not as fast. These two factors will combine with the large scale writing off of debt, liquidation of assets from the bubble, and the expense of foreign wars and military expense. Things will then change fairly fast and very radically. We will not drive to work because we will not have enough money to buy the gas. When gas for a weeks driving exceeds your salary, you stop driving. There will be no work to drive to. Same with the mall. Same with heating our huge houses with oil.
At that point large scale social change will start. By the time its through, suburbs and malls and trucks as warehouses will have vanished, along with frequent flyer programs. Hybrids are totally irrelevant in this scenario. It is back to bikes and walking.
When Kunstler says this sort of thing people object that (for instance) they can’t bike to their work today. Yes, so we will get work we can bike to. Or electric cars do not have the range. Yes, so we will drive to places they do have enough range for.
It will not be fun. It will dramatically lower CO2 emissions though. Among others. Pariculates from diesel too.