Today President Bush is touting his Energy plans to great fanfare from the Press. But are his words matching his action? Unfortunately we have learned over the years that when Bush talks about something the lazy press eats up his words with out investigating what his policies are actually doing. (If his lips are moving he is usually lying) Case in point
John Carey in
BusinessWeek's May 1st issues, has a story on Bush's gutting of the US Energy Efficiency programs.
Across the board, federal funding for energy efficiency is taking a major hit. In the White House's proposed 2007 budget, efficiency spending is down 17% overall from 2006 appropriations, and 25% from levels in 2002. The cuts are deeper for individual programs. Research to help industry reduce energy use is slated for a 30% decrease, and some programs are being shut down.
As a result, "we would be leaving a lot of energy on the table," says Peter Molinaro, vice-president of Dow Chemical.
What types of programs are our great President who ran on having an - oil- energy policy cutting?
After years of research, Charles Bates is close to perfecting a more energy-efficient method for casting engine blocks, a technique that industry would love to put into wider use. The University of Alabama engineer, who uses X-rays to monitor the shaping of molten metal, says only one big technical hurdle remains in refining a process that uses 30% less energy than traditional casting methods. "We've been making progress by leaps and bounds," he adds.
But Bates may be stopped short. The U.S. Energy Dept. wants to slash funding for the efficiency program that supports his work. This perplexes the foundry industry. "It's a great program, and we'd be sorry to see it go," says Bryan Baker, vice-president of Vulcan Engineering, which supplies casting equipment to General Motors (GM ), BMW, and others.
Assistant Energy Secretary Alexander Karsner has been quoted as in the press as saying "Efficiency is among my highest priorities". But he then cuts 25% in 4 years and the Press decides to leave that out of discussions on Bush's Energy policies? This isn't the first time our "Energy Policy" President has done this either.
In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 31, President George W. Bush called for investment in technology to break our "addiction" to oil. Just before a follow-up Presidential visit to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., the White House found that the lab had just laid off 32 workers because of budget cuts. Funding of $5 million was restored before the trip
But what types of savings does increased energy efficiency mean for you the average consumer?
Now, efficiency advocates are lobbying Congress to limit the damage to their cherished programs. With energy prices high and supplies tight, they argue, a mere 1% drop in demand causes prices to plunge 20%, easing cost pressures for both consumers and businesses
But what proof do we have they are correct people often make claims that are later proved to be false? How about
$20 billion dollars of proof!
Plus, these government efforts pay big dividends. Setting efficiency standards for refrigerators alone is saving nearly $20 billion a year, the California Energy Commission estimates. But the Bush Administration has so far failed to update appliance standards.
....
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, commissioner of the California Energy Commission "Thanks to state efficiency programs, Californians use about the same amount of electricity as they did in 1976. In contrast, per capita use in the U.S. overall has jumped 50% over the same period."
Why can't the whole country copy California's appliance standards? But the damage doesn't stop there other programs on Energy Efficiency are being cut.
In another federal program, university engineering students help small and medium-size companies reduce energy use. The $6 million per year effort brings $40 million in annual savings and trains new efficiency experts. But the number of universities involved is slated to be cut in half. And a threatened program to develop energy-saving processes for heavy industries has brought advances in everything from metal casting to glassmaking. "I can't think of another program in government where the results are so great," says Lawrence W. Kavanagh, vice-president of the American Iron & Steel Institute.
Now the university engineering students program is where I got my start at the University of Michigan. I worked at the EAC and we would go to small and medium sized companies and do an analysis of their energy usage. I can tell you from personal experience companies loved having us there. Many business owners would tell us this was the first time a government program benefited them. Many of these companies didn't have the time, recourses, or expertise to evaluate their own energy usage. We would go into these companies and save them $800 - $5,000 dollars a year. That may not sound like much until you consider that we did two of these visits a week for free. $2,900 X 2 for 52 weeks a year adds up! And we were just one University/Government sponsored program! I then took that knowledge to my first job at Dow Chemicals. Even though I wasn't hired in that capacities, I helped organize an energy audit at my plant site that saved us $120,000 a year! That is $120,000 a year at just one plant site!
Bush administration officials counter that the private sector doesn't need support since lower energy costs should be incentive enough. That's unrealistic, industry representatives say. On the plant floor, "the production schedule is more important than energy savings," says Nasr Alkadi, energy manager at General Motors' Wentzville (Mo.) plant. At the nonprofit Gas Technology Institute, federal dollars are helping David Rue develop an energy-saving process for making glass. "This has a chance to be a revolutionary change," he says, "but no one company has the resources to do it on its own."
It's time for people to face facts. Bush's idea of an energy program is solely focused on producing more energy and NEVER on using less. As a man who made his riches selling energy that was understandable, but that view is wrong headed for a President who was elected to serve all the people of the United States.
Biofuels, wind, and other renewable sources are now getting all the attention, and a larger share of federal dollars. But "efficiency is the quickest and cheapest solution," says Dow Chemical's Peter Molinaro. "It won't get us all the way there, but it is absolutely the way to start."
But before I am seen as trashing renewable energy to propose only conservation, I would like to point to a diary I did on this subject on February 21. The biggest lie told today in America is that we need to do more research on alternative energy to make it viable, the technology is already here, it makes billions of dollars in other countries, all without any subsidies competing in the free market.
BusinessWeek's Feb 27th, 2006 issue
Some 90 miles southeast of Johannesburg, the cooling towers and pipes of a giant industrial installation sprawl across five square miles. What happens at Secunda, as the place is known, is of great interest these days. At a time of sky-high oil prices, Sasol Ltd. (SSL ), Secunda's owner, churns out 160,000 barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel a day, enough to cover 28% of South Africa's needs, without using a single drop of crude oil, imported or otherwise.
Sasol is not a household name, but maybe it should be. President George W. Bush wants to curb America's dependence on Middle East oil. Analysts worry about a future gap between supplies and relentless demand. Yet Sasol, with $11.2 billion in revenues, is already enjoying huge commercial success in an arena that has eluded U.S. companies -- making fuel from coal. It is embarking on a program to brew clean-burning diesel from natural gas. It may even link up with coal producers in the U.S. heartland. "What is coming out of the U.S. makes us think there is a real business opportunity for us," says Sasol CEO Pat Davies.
No wonder investors have boosted Sasol's New York Stock Exchange-traded shares by almost 60% in a year, to 34. "You have to tip your hat to them," says Bernard J. Picchi of New York's Foresight Research Solutions LLC. "They've been doing [synfuels] longer than anyone else."
Sasol's technology for making gasoline from coal is named Fischer-Tropsch, after the Germans who developed it in the 1920s. The Third Reich used the process -- which employs heat, pressure, and catalysts to transform carbon monoxide and hydrogen into fuels -- to make diesel during World War II. Similarly, South Africa's apartheid regime employed it to ease the effects of the embargo in the '80s. Sasol has spent decades refining the technology and now has a money-spinner. Assuming oil prices stay in their current range, synfuels alone should earn Sasol $2 billion in operating profits for the year ending June 30, 2006, says Picchi. The fat profits have prompted some South African policymakers to call for a windfall tax on Sasol, a development that recently affected the stock.
Look at what
The Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006 WSJ says about Ethanol if you still think it's future technology. The technology is here.
As Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports
David Luhnow
Geraldo Samor
The Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Along with new offshore oil discoveries, that's a big reason Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.
To see how, take a look at Gildo Ferreira, a 39-year-old real-estate executive, who pulled his VW Fox into a filling station one recent afternoon. Instead of reaching for the gasoline, he spent $29 to fill up his car on ethanol made from sugar cane, an option that's available at 29,000 gas stations from Rio to the Amazon. A comparable tank of gasoline would have cost him $36. "It's cheaper and it's made here in Brazil," Mr. Ferreira says of ethanol. If the price of oil stays at current levels, he can expect to save about $350 a year.
[Saving at the Pump]
At current prices, Brazil can make ethanol for about $1 a gallon, according to the World Bank. That compares with the international price of gasoline of about $1.50 a gallon.
................
Brazil has successfully replaced 45% of its gasoline with fuel alcohol since about 1990, experts point out that all Brazilian-produced ethanol is currently derived from the simple Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. of sucrose, rather than Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. from cane stalks or other fibrous materials.
Sugar cane juice is simply squeezed from cut stalks and fermented by yeast into ethanol. The waste cane stalks, known as bagasse, are burned as fuel to provide the Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. with energy for the process.
By contrast, U.S. ethanol manufacturers utilize starch from feedstock, such as corn, grain sorghum or wheat, which must be converted into sugar using enzymes, for the ultimate fermentation into ethanol by simple yeast.
Cellulosic ethanol production involves a highly technical three-step chemical process which begins by extracting the cellulose from biomass -- such as corn stalks, rice straw, wheat straw, switchgrass, corn fiber, soy fiber and the like -- which is basically glued together with a tough compound known as lignin.
To produce ethanol, the cellulose must first be "unglued" using a pre-treatment process, such as dilute acid hydrolysis, autohydrolysis, or ammonia fiber explosion. The cellulose is then converted to sugar using special enzymes costing 500% to 1,000% more than those commonly needed to process starch. The resultant sugar is then fermented into cellulosic ethanol utilizing a genetically modified form of yeast.
Estimates concerning the cost of producing ethanol via this process vary widely.
"Most viewers see present cost of cellulose ethanol as around $3.50 per gallon - double cost from carbohydrate," said Harrison Cooper president of the Bountiful Applied Research Corporation in Bountiful, Utah. "There has been mention (that) cellulose enzyme/fermentation costs might be (reduced) to as low as $1.30, but this is based on hopeful conjecture."
Let's stop the Bush administration energy agenda, it is simply bad for America. Putting politics above the America's future.