The Energy Security Act of 1980 is not axed.

Just like what I wrote two days ago, right?

It's a reflexive response, the oil shocks of the last few decades have created a situation which people who should know better think has existed in all times and in all places.

I didn't see your post, but yes I agree with what you wrote.

The notion that the Middle East was the 'black gold' epicenter of the world and Germany and the UK were fighting over the oil is not something that came up in the books or documentaries from the 40s thru the 60s. But, I recall very clearly a documentary from 1979 that flat out said the war in North Africa and potentally the Middle East if Germany made it that far was over control of the oil supply.
 
I had the opportunity to read in the Congressional Record, at the time they were going on, the debates regarding the Energy Security Act. The primary focus in the short term was going to be on coal liquefication and gassification, combined with conservation and fuel efficiency efforts to control demand. It was estimated at that time that there was, based on projections of future energy usage, enough energy locked up in the massive coal reserves of the United States to meet ALL of our energy needs for at least 500, and possibly as much as 700 years, which would allow ample time for renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. to mature. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation would have overseen America's transition to coal-based fuels. The other parts of the act were research programs, not anything that they really thought would make a major contribution in the near term.

It was understood at the time the act was passed that, in the short term, the price of synthetic, coal-based oil production would be higher than the cost of importing oil. However, as more plants were brought on line, the technology gradually improved, and the supply of oil worldwide began to dwindle, it was expected that the cost would come down to a point where it would, in the long term, be more competitively priced than imported oil would be. And indeed, the cost of synthetic, coal-based crude oil today, using current technology (which did not benefit from the extra resources which would have been devoted to its development if the Energy Security Act had not been axed), would be approximately 30% cheaper than petroleum-based crude oil, and if the Energy Security Act had not been axed, we'd have the production infrastructure in place today to produce it in mass quantities.

The Energy Security Act represented long-term thinking, which is exactly what we needed to do to solve our energy problems. Unfortunately, short-term thinking (and lots of bribes...excuse me, campaign contributions...from the oil industry, which hated the act) ultimately prevailed.
There's just three major problems...
Strip-mining and mountaintop removal create environmental disasters
Coal has far more CO2 than Petroleum
Coal mining is still one of the most dangerous occupations in America.
 
One question to my american friends here, Ethanol in Brazil is made of sugar cane,it is said here that is cheaper than the corn based one,and i do not honestly see any problems with food production here in Brazil,why the US can not uuse sugar cane based ethanol?All of our cars made here in Brazil are hybrid ones,they use both ethanol and petrol,why the US don´t do that as well?Ethanol here is cheaper than petrol, but it only is cost eficient if the price is up to 75% of the petrol price.
 
... i do not honestly see any problems with food production here in Brazil,why the US can not uuse sugar cane based ethanol?


I honestly don't see why Brazil doesn't grow more Christmas trees... :rolleyes:

Oddly enough, certain crops require on certain climates and the US doesn't have many regions suited for cane production. Brazil produces 25 times the amount of cane the US does thanks to, among other things, Brazil's climate.

Head over to this page and check out the map depicting cane production worldwide. It should answer your "question".
 
To be honest we don´t grow christmas three,ours are artificial:mad:.i love the real ones you have in the US.Florida has a very similar climate and weather compared to Pernambuco(my state) and the brazilian northeast as a hole.I thought that the southern US could grow sucar cane,because it resemble brazilian north east,of course i have only visited as a tourist Florida,southern Alabama and Texas,so my perspective is very limited.Southern California also strikes as a possible region for growing sugar cane too,how about Haway ,the Virgin islands and Puerto Rico?São Paulo(state) has a very huge plantation of sugar cane and it is a moderate(temperate?) climate.Is there a reason for The USnot have both Corn and sugar cane ethanol?
By the way i am going to New York with family in the begining of march,carnival time here,and not everybody loves it.I do like your country!
 
I thought that the southern US could grow sucar cane,because it resemble brazilian north east,of course i have only visited as a tourist Florida,southern Alabama and Texas,so my perspective is very limited.


Those regions do grow cane, as do Hawaii and Puerto Rico, but the amount of land suited to can production is a pittance compared to Brazil.

There's a reason Brazil ranks 1st in the world for cane production and the US ranks a very distance 10th. That reason is also why Brazil produces 25 times the amount of cane the US does.

Southern California also strikes as a possible region for growing sugar cane too...

Southern California is a desert. It depends on a huge network of aqueducts diverting water from hundreds of miles away. Many people forget that, including most of the people who live in Southern California.

Is there a reason for The USnot have both Corn and sugar cane ethanol?

None whatsoever. It's more of a political subsidies issue than anything else. The US would be hard pressed to meet as high of a percentage of it's fuel demands through bio-fuels of any type as Brazil does though because the US population and fuel demands are higher to begin with.

On this issue and others the US can and should learn from Brazil. However, the US cannot be like Brazil because both nations are somewhat different.

I do like your country!

And I your's. It's a lovely, bustling, vibrant place. I especially enjoyed my visits to Brasilia on business. :)
 
Nice to know Don Lardo,i used to spend vacations in Brasilia with cousins of mine when ii was a teenager.I have to say that Brasilia is a little diferent than the rest of Brazil,if you ever come here in vacations go to the northeast,not because is where i live,but because it is great for fun,sun and beach.
Yes,Southern california doesn´t have water, i have forgotten that.
I think your country is great,wich Brazil had some of your people virtues,you realy have acountry to be proud about!
 
Don,sugar cane ethanol became huge here due to government subsides as well!
It is always about politicians,and ours(Brazil) are the worst there is!
 
The transportation infrastructure in the US is quite different from that of Europe, being far more tied to roads and far less to rails. Mass transportation is much weaker in the US (except for a few cities). Distances are larger throughout.

Countering that is freight movement. European freight railroads suck. American freight railroads, by contrast, are nearly-unstoppable machines that can move just about anything huge distances with far, far greater energy efficiency. America has places were rail transit works beautifully, and wider-scale commuter rail networks, like GO Transit in Toronto or METRA in Chicago, would work wonders in most American cities. Those additions would be a big help to energy consumption, too, and even as a car nut I used to hate commuting in the morning.

Just getting rid of SUV's isn't going to do it. You'd need a massive revival of the railroads, the creation of multi-mode mass-transit systems in every urban area, and so on. That isn't going to happen until you change the 'car as status symbol and sign of freedom and individuality' culture we have in the US right now. I don't see Federal legislation as being able to do that.

I don't think that's true at all. Cars are always going to status symbols, but modern vehicles, for a variety of reasons, are not energy efficient and can easily be made better - MUCH better. Is there really a need to buy a $50,000 SUV to drive to work, and especially with the size of many American homes with multiple-car garages, what's stopping one from spending $20,000 on a minivan or family sedan instead? And if you want to impress the boss, $30,000 can buy plenty of nice cars for everyday driving. I think its more a case of making the vehicles more efficient. CAFE did that for a while, until Clinton stupidly decided to make SUVs exempt from those regulations. (And immediately brought about the death of the station wagon almost overnight.) Require SUVs to meet CAFE requirements and you reduce the oil consumed by rather a lot.

Was nuclear power any part of the package? Didn't see it in the OP. That doesn't help directly, of course, but it does free up coal to be used for synthetic fuel without needing to go as deeply into oil shale, etc.

In 1980 that would nearly impossibly to justify, thanks to Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. What the American nuclear industry ought to have done IMO is bring the media in for power plant tours, show off the latest designs, show what they are doing to not have any more gargantuan screwups like what happened at Three Mile Island, as well as co-operating with the NRC and the anti-nuclear protesters to show that nuclear energy is safe to use, and that the industry is making it safer. By the mid-80s, you'd probably be able to start getting that industry going again.
 
Countering that is freight movement. European freight railroads suck. American freight railroads, by contrast, are nearly-unstoppable machines that can move just about anything huge distances with far, far greater energy efficiency. America has places were rail transit works beautifully, and wider-scale commuter rail networks, like GO Transit in Toronto or METRA in Chicago, would work wonders in most American cities. Those additions would be a big help to energy consumption, too, and even as a car nut I used to hate commuting in the morning.
Yes, the US freight railroads do more with less. However, take a look at any US Interstate highway. See all those trucks? Roughly half are carrying long-distance cargo that could easily go by rail instead at a large energy savings.

The problem comes down to votes. A truck requires one driver to haul one container. A train requires three or four crew to haul a hundred containers. So if you try to legislate shifting cargo from trucks to train, you're putting ninety-odd people out of work for each trainload of cargo you shift. That isn't politically feasible.

I don't think that's true at all. Cars are always going to status symbols, but modern vehicles, for a variety of reasons, are not energy efficient and can easily be made better - MUCH better. Is there really a need to buy a $50,000 SUV to drive to work, and especially with the size of many American homes with multiple-car garages, what's stopping one from spending $20,000 on a minivan or family sedan instead? And if you want to impress the boss, $30,000 can buy plenty of nice cars for everyday driving. I think its more a case of making the vehicles more efficient. CAFE did that for a while, until Clinton stupidly decided to make SUVs exempt from those regulations. (And immediately brought about the death of the station wagon almost overnight.) Require SUVs to meet CAFE requirements and you reduce the oil consumed by rather a lot.
Please look up 'status symbol'. Note that nothing in the definition describes practicality unless there's a negative in front of it. Over 90% of SUVs are a waste of resources. Everyone knows this. They keep selling like crazy. Why? Because when Americans shop for a car the vast majority of them aren't shopping for a practical item, they're shopping for a symbol. Myself, I drive a station wagon and I always have. I can haul anything most SUVs can, my gas mileage is better and I can park in smaller spaces. My wife and I only own one car; not one each, one total. We, however, are not typical, and despite the fact that I live in a suburb quite close to my workplace (and work for the largest employer in my area) there isn't a single public transportation route that can get me to work in the morning and home in the afternoon. That, sadly, is quite typical of a lot of US cities.

I'll readily agree Clinton was stupid. :)

In 1980 that would nearly impossibly to justify, thanks to Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. What the American nuclear industry ought to have done IMO is bring the media in for power plant tours, show off the latest designs, show what they are doing to not have any more gargantuan screwups like what happened at Three Mile Island, as well as co-operating with the NRC and the anti-nuclear protesters to show that nuclear energy is safe to use, and that the industry is making it safer. By the mid-80s, you'd probably be able to start getting that industry going again.

You're right that it wasn't going to happen, but the media weren't interested in boring facts and plant tours when they could be reporting on hysteria. The media reports what makes for the best headlines, and "everything is fine" sells fewer papers than "we're all gonna die!"

The protesters also weren't interested in facts. How many engineers and hard science majors do you think were in those protests? We covered enough plant design to prove that a 'meltdown' couldn't happen in a modern US-designed plant in my junior year (BS ME). It does NOT take a genius or a PhD to understand these things, although some thermodynamics and control systems design knowledge is helpful.
 
Top