Reducing our Nations oil consumption by 30% via renewables.

[wacki]

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_relea...=mr20050421-01

Media Contact: Ron Walli
Communications and External Relations
865.576.0226


Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence

"OAK RIDGE, Tenn., April 21, 2005 — Relief from soaring prices at the gas pump could come in the form of corncobs, cornstalks, switchgrass and other types of biomass, according to a joint feasibility study for the departments of Agriculture and Energy.

The recently completed Oak Ridge National Laboratory report outlines a national strategy in which 1 billion dry tons of biomass – any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis – would displace 30 percent of the nation's petroleum consumption for transportation. Supplying more than 3 percent of the nation's energy, biomass already has surpassed hydropower as the largest domestic source of renewable energy, and researchers believe much potential remains.

"Our report answers several key questions," said Bob Perlack, a member of ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division and a co-author of the report. "We wanted to know how large a role biomass could play, whether the United States has the land resources and whether such a plan would be economically viable."

Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, the study found potential exceeding 1.3 billion dry tons per year. That amount is enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels, according to the report.

Such an amount, which would represent a six-fold increase in production from the amount of biomass produced today, could be achieved with only relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

"One of the main points of the report is that the United States can produce nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually from agricultural lands and still continue to meet food, feed and export demands," said Robin Graham, leader for Ecosystem and Plant Sciences in ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division.

The benefits of an increased focus on biomass include increased energy security as the U.S. would become less dependent on foreign oil, a potential 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and an improved rural economic picture.

Current production of ethanol is about 3.4 billion gallons per year, but that total could reach 80 billion gallons or more under the scenario outlined in this report. Such an increase in ethanol production would see transportation fuels from biomass increase from 0.5 percent of U.S. consumption in 2001 to 4 percent in 2010, 10 percent in 2020 and 20 percent in 2030. In fact, depending on several factors, biomass could supply 15 percent of the nation's energy by 2030.

Meanwhile, biomass consumption in the industrial sector would increase at an annual rate of 2 percent through 2030, while biomass consumption by electric utilities would double every 10 years through 2030. During the same time, production of chemicals and materials from bio-based products would increase from about 12.5 billion pounds, or 5 percent of the current production of target U.S. chemical commodities in 2001, to 12 percent in 2010, 18 percent in 2020 and 25 percent in 2030.

Nearly half of the 2,263 million acres that comprise the land base of the U.S. has potential for growing biomass. About 33 percent of the land area is classified as forest, 26 percent as grassland, 20 percent as cropland, 13 percent as urban areas, swamps and deserts, and 8 percent as special uses such as public facilities.

The report, titled "Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply," was sponsored by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renwable Energy, Office of Biomass Program. Lynn Wright and Anthony Turhollow of ORNL, Bryce Stokes of the USDA Forest Service and Don Erbach of the USDA Agriculture Research Service are co-authors of the report. The complete report is available at: http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/...on_vision.pdf.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy."

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Out of national interest I disagree. Keep sending your money here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]:

Oil fund soars to new high
Norway's central bank said Tuesday that the value of the country's so-called "oil fund" jumped 20 percent last year. The fund is pumped full of oil revenues, saved for future generations.
Norges Bank said the Government Petroleum Fund reached NOK 1.02 trillion (nearly USD 164 billion) at the end of 2004.

High oil prices have resulted in a windfall for Norway's treasury, but politicians resist using all the money to fund existing welfare programs. Instead, they decided in the mid-1990s to set aside oil revenues and invest them, to prepare for the day when Norway's offshore oil and gas wells may run dry.

The fund surpassed the one-trillion mark after hitting NOK 988.1 billion at the end of September and NOK 845 billion at the end of 2003.

The fund earned an average return of 8.9 percent. Nearly NOK 140 billion in fresh capital was transferred to the fund from the treasury during 2004.

All told, the fund's assets now represent a savings account of about NOK 210,000 (USD 35,360) for every Norwegian.

[BCPVP]

Question, would this require government subsidies? I know in Wisconsin there's lots of talk about ethanol that the farm lobby is trying to push, but I've heard it's a bit of a boondoggle.

[andyfox]

Reducing oil consumption is a crucial issue, much more important than whether a few judges get appointed, or whether we end up using part of our social security for stock market investments. If we increased miles per gallon by 1 gallon, we could save more oil than each year than they expect to generate out Alaska when they start the new drilling there. If we increased it by 5 mpg, we could completely eliminate out dependence on foreign oil.

Add to that the political costs of depending on OPEC, and the environmental costs, and it seems to me it's the most crucial issue facing us today.

I'd be in favor of doubling the gas guzzler tax on new cars. And doubling the tax credit for buying a hybrid. And forcing the automobile companies to make different size gas tank openings for gas guzzler cars; the gas stations would also have to have special nozzles such that only those would fit into the gas guzzler tanks. You want a car that gets 12 mpg: fine, pay $4.00 a gallon.

We've been talking about this since 1973. Isn't it time to do something effective?

[Phat Mack]

I'd be in favor of doubling the gas guzzler tax on new cars.

As an aside, they'd have to close some loopholes, e.g. extend it to SUV's, pikups, etc.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
If we increased miles per gallon by 1 gallon, we could save more oil than each year than they expect to generate out Alaska when they start the new drilling there. If we increased it by 5 mpg, we could completely eliminate out dependence on foreign oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

You seem to be a well-informed guy so I guess I'm directing this question at you. Is it just an urban legend that, long ago, a more fuel efficient engine was invented, but oil companies bought the patents...or something along those lines, or is it rooted in truth?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be in favor of doubling the gas guzzler tax on new cars. And doubling the tax credit for buying a hybrid. And forcing the automobile companies to make different size gas tank openings for gas guzzler cars; the gas stations would also have to have special nozzles such that only those would fit into the gas guzzler tanks. You want a car that gets 12 mpg: fine, pay $4.00 a gallon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more. Price controls never ever ever work.

If I could bet, I would bet all my assets that any meddling by the govt will only prolong and enhance the problem. There's no real way to make this bet unfortunately, but I am quite positive that the less the govt gets involved, the sooner and more efficiently and effectively the market will produce transforming solutions.

The market already is in fact.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...mp;storyid=818

Just wait for the govt to get more involved.

natedogg

[andyfox]

Don't know. There's a book out, though, that talks about how, in the early days, it was unclear whether or not cars would be electric of gasoline powered. Haven't read it nor do I remember the name just now, I'll try to find it.

[andyfox]

The "market," though isn't much of one. There are very few oil companies and very few car companies. With oligopoliles in control, we've gotten ourselves into the mess we're in.

Sometimes when the government gets involved, good things happen. The car companies were against seat belts, claimed they were useless, wouldn't save lives, would be too costly, yada, yada.

We're facing a situation where we're destroying the atmosphere that protects us from the sun's radiation. Where our economic well-being depends on the whims of the House of Saud and other such lowlives. Where the ramifications of such dependency have led to us having our servicemen in Iraq.

I fear this "market" more than I fear a concerted effort by our government to address these issues.

[[censored]]

Wait. Why is a gallon of gas used by a SUV worse than a gallon used by a Hybrid? SUV owners already pay the price of there choice in the form of worse gas mileage. Should a minority opinion really be able to effectively decide what types of cars people can and cannot drive? How about other things some people see as damaging, such as violent or sexually graphic materials? Seems like a very slippery slope.