Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight with several of my colleagues to discuss an issue of great importance to our Nation, and I know that everyone that gets up here starts the same way, but this is a particularly important issue, one…
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight with several of my colleagues to discuss an issue of great importance to our Nation, and I know that everyone that gets up here starts the same way, but this is a particularly important issue, one that the three of us wish to discuss as scientists, or those who have a great interest in science.
Tonight's topic is going to be energy. You have heard a lot about energy recently, worried about the gas prices, worried about the energy policy bill that we have worked on in the House and the Senate is now studying. Energy is extremely important, but what is most important to me when we are talking about energy or any other issue is to talk about the long-term effects because that is what the people hire us for. They elect us to come here and discuss and debate the future of this Nation, and it is very easy to forget that because we are always caught up in the instantaneous things we do, the stuff we have to get done today; but the people of this land, struggling
every day to make a living, keep ends together, do not have the time to do the long-range thinking.
Corporate leaders are bound by their requirement to produce profits every quarter, to get the stock price up. It is up to us to really think about where this Nation is going and what is really important and what is likely to happen to it.
So I wish to approach this topic this evening to talk about our energy future, where are we now, what is energy like, what is going to happen in the future; and between the three of us discussing this this evening, I hope that we can enlighten our colleagues and others who are interested in the topic.
Let me begin by an introductory way just talking about energy and the nature of energy.
I happen to be a scientist, a physicist to be more precise; and I have been involved in energy studies for some 30 years, but also because of my background in physics, I have learned a lot about energy, and I would like to tap some of that knowledge to talk about some of the issues and point out some of the characteristics of energy.
First of all, energy is unique. Unique means there is nothing else like it. It is unique in several ways. Energy is our most basic natural resource.
For one simple reason: Without it, we cannot use our other natural resources.
Now, let me give an example of that and to prove my point that energy is our most basic natural resource. If you would like to build something out of iron, suppose it is a car or a can or whatever, the first thing you have to do is dig the iron ore out of the ground. That takes energy. Then you have to transport the ore to the smelting plant and recover the iron out of the ore. Transportation takes energy. Smelting it takes energy. When you are finished with that, you transport it the rolling mill. That takes energy. And you roll it out into sheet steel so it is easier to work with. That takes energy. Then you transport it to the factory. That takes energy. Finally, you fabricate a car or something else out of it, and that takes a lot of energy. Finally, you transport the finished product to the consumer, which once again takes energy.
Notice that every step of the way you were using energy in order to use other natural resources. I could have picked any other natural resource, and the same thing would be true. So energy is our most basic natural resource. You must always remember that. But secondly, and perhaps even more important, energy is a non-recyclable resource. Once you use it, it is gone. Now, if we use up our iron, we could go mine our landfills. We can recover scrap iron, as we do already to a great extent, and we can recycle it over and over and over. There is only so much iron on this planet, but we can keep using it over and over and over, and we are not likely to run out. Its cost may go up, but it is still there.
But when you use energy, it is gone. When you fill your tank with gasoline and you drive it for a week and the tank is empty, the energy is all gone. It is used up. Where does it go? We know energy is conserved, but it can change form. All the energy from the petroleum you put in your car, from the gasoline you use, gets consumed and turned into heat energy, largely unusable heat energy. And eventually, that gets radiated out into space, and it is gone for us forever.
So these two important features define a great deal about energy and how we should treat it and how we should handle it. Finally, because of this, the price of energy affects our economy more than the price of almost any other resource, simply because when the price of energy goes up, that price gets added on to every step of the manufacturing process which I mentioned.
Let me mention some other characteristics of energy. Energy is intangible to most people. To me, as a scientist, it is very tangible. I have worked with energy so long I can almost touch it, feel it, taste it, et cetera. But to the average person, you cannot touch it. You cannot see it, unless it is light energy. You cannot feel it, unless it is heat energy. You cannot smell it, and you cannot taste it. So energy is intangible. To most people, the only tangible aspect of energy is the price at the gas pump or the utility bill at the end of the month.
Because energy is intangible, people tend not to understand it. They do not know how to use it properly. I have a saying I often use, and I even have a tie to match the color I am talking about, I wish energy were purple. Because if energy were purple and people could see it, their behavior would change. When they drive home from the store or from the church and drive up to their house in the middle of winter and see a purple haze oozing through the walls because of poor insulation, or purple rivulets around the windows or doors because they are leaking heat, they would say, Man, that is terrible; I have to insulate this house better. I have to seal up the windows and doors more. Because they do not see it, it is not purple so they cannot see it, they are not aware of this.
If you were driving down the highway and a little Toyota Prius or some other hybrid car goes by, something like the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) drives, and he may discuss that a little later this evening, and this little Prius goes by, and there is just a little purple around it, because it does not use much energy; but then a Hummer or a large SUV goes by, and there is a purple cloud around it, if people could see it they would say, Hey, I am going to get a Prius or some other hybrid car and use less energy. So I wish energy was purple so it would be tangible to everyone. I think behaviors would change very quickly.
To show the importance of energy, I would like to point out that energy affects civilization in a very direct way because energy represents the ability to do work. That, in fact, is the definition of work in physics. Energy represents the ability to do work.
With the first use of nonhuman energy, in other words using animals to plow the fields and so forth, we had the agricultural revolution beginning. We talk about these big revolutions in the human history, and the agricultural revolution is a large one. There is no contention about that. But the agriculture revolution occurred only after we started using nonhuman energy, because people were not strong enough to really do a good job of pulling plows. Before they had plows that they could pull, people tried agriculture, and it never really succeeded until they discovered they could domesticate oxen or other animals and have them do their work, and then the agriculture revolution succeeded.
The next big step was again related to energy. You have heard of the industrial revolution, where we began using industry to manufacture things and to replace human labor. What did we use? Fossil fuels. Coal first and then oil and eventually natural gas. So the first use of nonanimal energy led to the industrial revolution. Once again, this indicates how important energy is to life on this planet and to civilization and to our economy.
I have drawn here on this chart a model for responsible energy use, trying to relate it to something that everyone understands. When you talk about your money, you go out and get a job because you need to eat, and you would like to have a house and a car. So you get a job, and you earn money. That is income. And most people in this country have to live within their income. That is what everyone aspires to. Sometimes, there are special needs, and you dip into your savings. And some are fortunate enough to inherit some money. So that is the model of individual use of money.
Now, you can look at energy the same way. If you look at the income of energy on our planet, most of it comes from solar energy. We talk a lot about using biomass. That is energy from the sun captured by plants, and we can try to retrieve the solar energy from that. Wind energy. Lots of efforts to build windmills and use wind energy. Once again, that energy comes from the sun because the sun differentially heats the atmosphere and that causes the wind to blow. How about hydropower? Huge dams generating lots of electricity for us. Once again, that is solar energy, because the sun evaporates the water off the oceans and the lakes, gets into the clouds and comes down as rain, collects behind the dams, and we use that energy. Waves are also related to solar energy, because that powers the wind, which generates the waves, and people have tried to extract that energy.
The only one on this list that is income energy but not from the sun is
from the moon, and that is the tidal energy. And efforts have been made to tap that, but it is pretty tough to do and you do not get a lot of energy out of it.
What about the savings? Our savings account are all the fossil fuels; coal, oil and natural gas. Those are stored solar energy. That comes from plants which grew many, many, many, many years ago. Those plants eventually got covered up and over the years decayed and turned into coal, petroleum, natural gas.
Then there is wood, which is also a short-term savings account. Again, it is plant. It really could go up in biomass here, but trees live a long time, so I put it down here in our savings account because, normally, we do not use all that energy in our lifetime.
Finally, our inheritance, that is energy we inherited with this planet. Our universe and our planet were so beautifully created, and there are energy sources within the planet. There may be more than I have listed, but certainly geothermal energy. Heat energy within the earth can be used to drive power plants and already is in certain parts of California and other parts of the world. And nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is so long term, and it is basically there from the creation of the earth, so nuclear energy I would also classify as an inheritance.
Now, I would propose that when we are using energy, we should treat it the same way we do our money; try to live within our income. In other words, try to use as much as we can of the solar energy, lunar energy and so forth. Recognize we have to dip into our savings account, and so we can use the fossil fuels and wood for that, but not to the extent we are using it now so that we use it all up, unless we use that to develop new energy resources for our children and grandchildren.
And, finally, the inheritance. That is a long-term thing, but we do not want to depend totally on it. But certainly, that is there and that is a very promising thing to pursue.
Finally, I hope as a result of the discussion we have tonight that all of us in this Congress and all the people of this country will come to appreciate energy. It is my hope that a better understanding of energy will lead to a wiser use of it by our citizens. And so that is the theme of this hour's discussion we are going to have tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by several colleagues, and next I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his perceptive comments and his poetic, almost philosophical, statements. I appreciate that.
I would just like to add one quick note. When you refer to photovoltaics, I just read an article a week or two ago on this. It is just astounding to me how fast the field has developed in the last few years. Let me just give one quote: We expect that by 2015, photovoltaics will be producing electricity at the cost of 6 cents per kilowatt hour. That is generally less than people are paying for their electricity at their home. And there are no transition costs because you can keep the photovoltaic unit right in your home generating electricity for your home. A friend of mine has built a house which is totally independent of outside energy using photovoltaics and other things. He lives 5 miles from the nearest power line. It works beautifully.
But the very interesting thing is that the prediction is that half of new U.S. electricity generation by 2025 will be produced by photovoltaics, replacing a lot of power plants. I was pleased when I read this. I thought, this fellow really knows what he is talking about. I got to the end and looked at the name. It is Mr. Al Compaan, professor at the University of Toledo and a former student of mine. I did not realize until I reached the end that he was one of my students.
We have approximately 30 minutes, and I have three more speakers so if each of them could limit themselves to 10 minutes or less, I would appreciate it. Next I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who was with the Congress for 6 years, term- limited himself, very honorably, and has now returned to us having fulfilled that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I particularly would like to emphasize a couple of things. First of all, many people tend to assume hydrogen is a new source of energy. It is not a source of energy because free hydrogen does not occur in nature. We have to produce it. And highlighting the needs, we have to develop means of production and storage and distribution, which includes transportation to the gas stations. It is going to be a real revolution. I would expect, by 2020, we will see a substantial number of those vehicles on the road. It is going to take a lot of hard work, but it will be worth it because they will be essentially pollution free, and if we produce the hydrogen using nuclear energy or solar energy, something other than petroleum, we will also be contributing to a cleaner atmosphere and get rid of the greenhouse gasses.
So I thank the gentleman very much for his contribution, and I am delighted to have him on the Committee on Science with me.
Mr. Speaker, next I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who has Oakridge National Laboratories within his district and is very interested in science and particularly in energy, which is natural because the Oakridge Laboratories is a Department of Energy facility. So I am very anxious to hear what he has to add to the discussion this evening.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate his words about the Jetsons. Both previous speakers mentioned we have to be smart with the smart cars of the future. I would say if we are not smart, we may end up like the Flintstones, instead of the Jetsons. So it is very important for us to do the long-term planning we need to in this body.
Also the gentleman mentioned the document from the Energy Future Coalition, which I also have. National security is a very, very important part of this discussion, and it really irritates me that we are financing our foes in the Middle East by sending all this money over there which they are diverting into instruments of war against us.
With that, I am pleased to recognize our final speaker of the day, another scientist, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is an expert on what is called ``peak oil.'' In other words, we talked about the finiteness of the oil and natural gas supplies. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is the expert, and he will explain that to us.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman has given an excellent presentation. Unfortunately, we do not have time to go into details, but as the gentleman mentioned, I believe we have other time next week when we can do that. I look forward to hearing more from the gentleman about his field of expertise.
Mr. Speaker, I would also enter into the record a letter from the Energy Future Coalition which was sent to President George W. Bush along with some attached material which I think is very important for our colleagues to peruse and it will certainly be of interest to other people in this Nation.
I want to thank the four gentlemen who joined me here this evening, all of them are experts in different areas relating to energy. They have done an excellent job of presenting things, and I hope this clarifies the energy situation and sheds some light on our efforts to ensure that we advance energy efficiency, advance energy conservation, advance development of new sources of energy, and, in particular, in terms of the chart I used, let us get away from using our savings; let us get on to using our income and some of our inheritance so that we have a balanced economy in the future and a safer Nation.
`Set America Free' a Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security
Introduction
Historically, the United States has pursued a three-pronged
strategy for minimizing the vulnerabilities associated with
its dependency on oil from unstable and/or hostile nations:
diversifying sources of oil, managing inventory in a
strategic petroleum reserve and increasing the efficiency of
the transportation sector's energy consumption. In recent
years, the focus has been principally on finding new and
larger sources of petroleum globally.
Rapidly growing worldwide demand for oil, however, has had
the effect of largely neutralizing this initiative, depleting
existing reserves faster than new, economically exploitable
deposits are being brought on line. Under these
circumstances, diversification among such sources is but a
stop-gap solution that can, at best, have temporary effect on
oil supply and, hence, on national security. Conservation can
help, but with oil consumption expected to grow by 60 percent
over the next 25 years, conservation alone will not be a
sufficient solution.
The `Set America Free' Project
Long-term security and economic prosperity requires the
creation of a fourth pillar--technological transportation of
the transportation sector through what might be called ``fuel
choice.'' By leading a multinational effort rooted in the
following principles, the United States can immediately begin
to introduce a global economy based on next-generation fuels
and vehicles that can utilize them:
Fuel diversification: Today, consumers can choose among
various octanes of gasoline, which accounts for 45 percent of
U.S. oil consumption, or diesel, which accounts for almost
another fifth. To these choices can and should promptly be
added other fuels that are domestically produced, where
possible from waste products, and that are clean and
affordable.
Real world solutions: We have no time to wait for
commercialization of immature technologies. The United States
should implement technologies that exist today and are ready
for widespread use.
Using existing infrastructure: The focus should be on
utilizing competitive technologies that do not require
prohibitive or, if possible, even significant investment in
changing our transportation sector's infrastructure. Instead,
``fuel choice'' should permit the maximum possible use of the
existing refueling and automotive infrastructure.
Domestic resource utilization: The United States is no
longer rich in oil or natural gas. It has, however, a wealth
of other energy sources from which transportation fuel can be
safely, affordably and cleanly generated. Among them:
hundreds of years worth of coal reserves, 25 percent of the
world's total (especially promising with Integrated
Gasification and Combined Cycle technologies); billions of
tons a year of biomass, and further billions of tons of
agricultural and municipal waste. Vehicles that meet consumer
needs (e.g., ``plug-in'' hybrids), can also tap America's
electrical grid to supply energy for transportation, making
more efficient use of such clean sources of electricity as
solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Environmentally sensible choices: The technologies adopted
should improve public safety and respond to the public's
environmental land health concerns.
Key Elements of the `Set America Free' Project
Vehicles
Hybrid electric vehicles: There are already thousands of
vehicles on America's roads that combine hybrid engines
powered in an integrated fashion by liquid fuel-powered
motors and battery-powered ones. Such vehicles increase gas-
consumption efficiency by 30-40 percent.
Ultralight materials: At least two-thirds of fuel use by a
typical consumer vehicle is caused by its weight. Thanks to
advances in both metals and plastics, ultralight vehicles can
be affordably manufactured with today's technologies and can
roughly halve fuel consumption without compromising safety,
performance or cost effectiveness.
``Plug-in'' hybrid electric vehicles: Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles are also powered by a combination of
electricity and liquid fuel. Unlike standard hybrids,
however, plug-ins draw charge not only from the engine and
captured braking energy, but also directly from the
electrical grid by being plugged into standard electric
outlets when not in use. Plug-in hybrids have liquid fuel
tanks and internal combustion engines, so they do not face
the range limitation posed by electric-only cars. Since
fifty-percent of cars on the road in the United States are
driven 20 miles a day or less, a plug-in with a 20-mile range
battery would reduce fuel consumption by, on average, 85
percent. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can reach fuel
economy levels of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed.
Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs): FFVs are designed to burn on
alcohol, gasoline, or any mixture of the two. About four
million FFV's have been manufactured since 1996. The only
difference between a conventional car and a flexible fuel
vehicle is that the latter is equipped with a different
control chip and some different fittings in the fuel line to
accommodate the characteristics of alcohol. The marginal
additional cost associated with such FFV-associated changes
is currently under $100 per vehicle. That cost would be
reduced further as volume of FFVs increases, particularly if
flexible fuel designs were to become the industry standard.
Flexible fuel/plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: If the two
technologies are combined, such vehicles can be powered by
blends of alcohol fuels, gasoline, and electricity. If a
plug-in vehicle is also a FFV fueled with 80 percent alcohol
and 20 percent gasoline, fuel economy could reach 500 miles
per gallon of gasoline.
If by 2025, all cars on the road are hybrids and half are
plug-in hybrid vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8
million barrels per day (mbd). Today, the United states
imports 10 mbd and it is projected to import almost 20 mbd by
2025. If all of these cars were also flexible fuel vehicles,
U.S. oil imports would drop by as much as 12 mbd.
Fuels
Fuel additives: Fuel additives can enhance combustion
efficiency by up to 25 percent. They can be blended into
gasoline, diesel and bunker fuel.
Electricity as a fuel: Less than 2 percent of U.S.
electricity is generated from oil, so using electricity as a
transportation fuel would greatly reduce dependence on
imported petroleum. Plug-in hybrid vehicles would be charged
at night in home garages--a time-interval during which
electric utilities have significant excess capacity. The
Electric Power Research Institute estimates that up to 30
percent of market penetration for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles with 20-mile electric range can be achieved without
a need to install additional electricity-generating capacity.
Alcohol fuels: ethanol, methanol and other blends:
Ethanol (also known as grain alcohol) is currently produced
in the U.S. from corn. The industry currently has a capacity
of 3.3 billion gallons a year and has increased on the
average of 25 percent per year over the past three years.
Upping production would be achieved by continuing to advance
the corn-based ethanol industry and by commercializing the
production of ethanol from biomass waste and dedicated energy
crops. P-Series fuel (approved by the Department of Energy in
1999) is a more energy-efficient blend of ethanol, natural
gas liquids and ether made from biomass waste.
Methanol (also known as wood alcohol) is today for the most
part produced from natural gas. Expanding domestic production
can be achieved by producing methanol from coal, a resource
with which the U.S. is abundantly endowed. The commercial
feasibility of coal-to-methanol technology was demonstrated
as part of the DOE's ``clean coal'' technology effort.
Currently, methanol is being cleanly produced from coal for
under 50 cents a gallon.
It only costs about $60,000 to add a fuel pump that serves
one of the above fuels to an existing refueling station.
Non-oil based diesel: Biodiesel is commercially produced
from soybean and other vegetable oils. Diesel can also be
made from waste products such as tires and animal byproducts,
and is currently commercially produced from turkey offal.
Diesel is also commercially produced from coal.
Policy Recommendations
Provide incentives to auto manufacturers to produce and
consumers to purchase, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles and FFVs across all vehicle models.
Provide incentives for auto manufacturers to increase fuel
efficiency of existing, non-FFV auto models.
Conduct extensive testing of next-generation fuels across
the vehicle spectrum to meet auto warranty and EPA emission
standards.
Mandate substantial incorporation of plug-ins and FFVs into
federal, state, municipal and covered fleets.
Provide investment tax incentives for corporate fleets and
taxi fleets to switch to plug-ins, hybrids and FFVs.
Encourage gasoline distributors to blend combustion
enhancers into the fuel.
Provide incentives for existing fueling stations to install
pumps that serve all liquid fuels that can be used in the
existing transportation infrastructure, and mandate that all
new gas stations be so equipped.
Provide incentives to enable new players, such as
utilities, to enter the transportation fuel market, and for
the development of environmentally sound exploitation of non-
traditional petroleum deposits from stable areas (such as
Canadian tar sands).
Provide incentives for the construction of plants that
generate liquid transportation fuels from domestic energy
resources, particularly from waste, that can be used in the
existing infrastructure.
Allocate funds for commercial scale demonstration plants
that produce next-generation transportation fuels,
particularly from waste products.
Implement federal, state, and local policies to encourage
mass transit and reduce vehicle-miles traveled.
Work with other oil-consuming countries towards
distribution of the above-mentioned technologies and overall
reduction of reliance on petroleum, particularly from hostile
and potentially unstable regions of the world.
A New National Project
In 1942, President Roosevelt launched the Manhattan Project
to build an atomic weapon to be ready by 1945 because of
threats to America and to explore the future of nuclear
fission. The cost in today's prices was $20 billion. The
outcome was an end to the war with Japan, and the beginning
of a wide new array of nuclear-based technologies in energy,
medical treatment, and other fields.
In 1962, President Kennedy launched the Man to the Moon
Project to be achieved by 1969 because of mounting threats to
U.S. and international security posed by Soviet space-
dominance and to explore outer space. The cost of the Apollo
program in today's prices would be well over $100 billion.
The outcome was an extraordinary strategic and technological
success for the United States. It engendered a wide array of
spin-offs that improved virtually every aspect of modern
life, including but not limited to transportation,
communications, health care, medical treatment, food
production and other fields.
The security of the United States, and the world, is no
less threatened by oil supply disruptions, price
instabilities and shortages. It is imperative that America
provide needed leadership by immediately beginning to
dramatically reduce its dependence on imported oil. This can
be done by embracing the concepts outlined above with a focus
on fuel choice, combined with concerted efforts at improving
energy efficiency and the increased availability of energy
from renewable sources.
The estimated cost of the ``Set America Free'' plan over
the next 4 years is $12 billion. This would be applied in the
following way: $2 billion for automotive manufacturers to
cover one-half the costs of building FFV-capability into
their new production cars (i.e., roughly 40 million cars at
$50 per unit); $1 billion to pay for at least one of every
four existing gas stations to add at least one pump to supply
alcohol fuels (an estimated incentive of $20,000 per pump,
new pumps costing approximately $60,000 per unit); $2 billion
in consumer tax incentives to procure hybrid cars; $2 billion
for automotive manufacturers to commercialize plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles; $3 billion to construct commercial-scale
demonstration plants to produce non-petroleum based liquid
fuels (utilizing public-private cost-sharing partnerships to
build roughly 25 plants in order to demonstrate the
feasibility of various approaches to perform efficiently at
full-scale production); and $2 billion to continue work on
commercializing fuel cell technology.
Since no major, new scientific advances are necessary to
launch this program, such funds can be applied towards
increasing the efficiencies of the involved processes. The
resulting return-on-investment--in terms of enhanced energy
and national security, economic growth, quality of life and
environmental protection--should more than pay for the seed
money required.
Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values.
Milton Copulos, National Defense Council Foundation.
Congressman Eliot Engel.
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy.
Bracken Hendricks, Apollo Alliance.
Col. (ret.) Bill Holmberg, American Council on Renewable
Energy.
Anne Korin, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.
Deron Lovaas, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Gal Luft, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.
Cliff May, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Hon. Robert C. McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor.
Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum.
Professor Richard E. Smalley, 1996 Nobel Laureate in
Chemistry.
Admiral James D. Watkins, Former U.S. Secretary of Energy.
Hon. R. James Woolsey, Former director of the CIA, Co-
Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger.
Meyrav Wurmser, Hudson Institute.