Oh Kenny, Kenny, Kenny. After finally spending some of your ginormous campaign war chest to make a new webpage about the need for an “All-of-the-Above" Energy Plan, and getting people to send letters to Speaker Pelosi so she would call a vote on a bill that considers offshore drilling, you’ve seen some results!

Your webpage demands that Speaker Pelosi “…allow votes on real options and enact policies that will increase production of all American-made energy sources, including: oil and natural gas (both onshore and offshore), oil shale, alternative fuels, clean coal, nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar. (Because) America can not afford to wait any longer…we demand that you put politics and partisan games aside by allowing votes on a real All-of-the-Above Energy policy.”

Well…Congrats! Apparently it worked. The House just passed a comprehensive energy plan that includes everything but the kitchen sink (although we didn’t read the whole bill, so ‘kitchen sink’ may indeed be an energy strategy listed somewhere in the back). But YOU VOTED AGAINST THE ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE ENERGY PLAN you demanded.

So why did you vote against the bill you literally demanded of the Speaker? Apparently because you are unable to “…put politics and partisan games aside…” It was a party line vote, so you did what you have done 95% of the time: voted with President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill.

You know, when Speaker Pelosi did what you demanded – call a vote on an All-of-the-Above Energy plan - you should have voted for it. She met your demand, and all you’ve done since is complain. That isn’t very nice of you. Seriously, you should be thanking the Speaker for listening to your demands and compromising accordingly by “put(ting) politics and partisan games aside by allowing votes on a real All-of-the-Above Energy policy.” Now that’s leadership!

I can't believe he did that!

To be honest, I didn't believe that comment so I went out to his website and then to the house vote and these two chicks are right - Calvert voted against it and it DID include offshore drilling as well as stuff for renewable energy (which on his site he says he agrees with).

I see that lots of other Republicans voted for it so what's wrong with him? He seems to be losing all credibility. I've voted for him in the past but I'm actually considering switching and voting against him this time around.

In case you didn't notice, Speaker Pelosi's "energy" bill was nothing more than a big hoax. It only allows offshore drilling in areas where there isn't any oil. Not exactly a solution to our energy problems.

Thankfully Calvert and other Republicans opposed this bill and it appears to be dead. Hopefully Calvert and the other Republicans will be able to prevent the Democrats from extending the offshore drilling moratorium when it expires at the end of the month.

Frank - you must be working for Calvert because I'm as much of a party-liner as anyone out there but Calvert has been an empty suit on this issue. He created that website for the sole purpose of grandstanding demanding that the Democrats look into renewable sources along with offshore drilling and then voted against the bill because it included the other items. He wants drilling and drilling alone which is completetly idiotic. The country wants the "all of the above" strategy so we can't win saying all we want is drilling. Makes our party sound out-of-touch and will cost us votes in November.

I mean come on, if we want to win in November, our party needs to step up and walk the walk. We can't keep saying that we're the party of fiscal responsibility and then vote consistently to grow the government and have you looked at the deficit lately? That's our party who's done this to the country. Thank goodness the Democrats took control in 2006 so we can blame them for some of it but if voters actually start studying it, they'll see it's our guys who have screwed us.

I'm a fiscal conservative which means I don't want the country run on a credit card. I also want the government to decrease - not increase.

Where are the REAL Republicans out there???

The plan won't fix the problem. This will address all the issues.
Forget the forest lets look at a tree. The following is a loan issued by Indy-Mac. Loan amount $450,000 revaluation by the state of California $270,000. Loan value 80% equals new first loan $216,000. Then reduce the original loan by 15% to 40% this will be a second. Open the discount window to the states at 1% this was what started the problem. Allow the states to charge 3% there by collecting the other 2%. Charge 5% on the second. this will cut in half the payments. The people who say only owe $100,000 can buy another house to rent. No BK'S. this is step one. $450,000
-17%____
$216,000
=$157,500
please call 951-972-4448
Rion Clark

“Apollo Approach to Energy Independence”
An Energy Plan for the United States
by
Arthur A. Nussberger
MSME University of Southern California
Retired Aerospace Engineer
artnus@charter.net

What is needed is an Apollo approach to solve our energy problem. On May 25, 1961 President Kennedy issued a challenge to the country to safely land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth by the end of the decade. NASA’s Space Task Group in Langely Field, Virginia released the Apollo Spacecraft Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 9-150 on July 28, 1961 two months after President Kennedy’s announcement. On August 14 and 15, 1961 NASA held a special pre-proposal briefing to further define proposal requirements. Contractor teams submitted Apollo Program Spacecraft and Booster proposal volumes on October 9, 1961. Shortly thereafter NASA contracts were awarded for all the major elements of the launch configuration. For eight years the United States committed 6% of its national budget to accomplish the moon program. In today’s funding that would amount to about $150 billion per year. The Apollo mission was a challenge to all mankind. Many experts throughout the world doubted that man could survive such a mission. From the beginning experts expressed grave concerns that the surface of the moon was too irregular for a safe landing and some stated their belief that upon landing the astronauts would sink into lunar dust and disappear. They thought that the moon was covered with thick dust, perhaps to a depth of a mile. Others believed that upon re-pressurizing the Lunar Excursion Module the lunar rocks that the astronauts were to bring home would explode and destroy the spacecraft. Many feared that the astronauts couldn’t survive in the space environment of a vacuum, considering extremes of heat and cold, meteorite and micrometeoroid bombardments and radiation from solar flares. In addition NASA had the huge tasks of developing new and more powerful launch vehicles and their launch facilities, new spacecraft and advanced operational and crew support systems, complex ground handling equipment, exacting mission analysis and trajectories, huge test facilities, and meaningful simulators for crew training. Over 500,000 people worked on the Apollo program with an additional 2.5 million jobs dependent on the program. On July 20, 1969 (eight years after President Kennedy’s announcement) Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon and several days later safely splashed down in the blue Pacific Ocean meeting President Kennedy’s challenge.
The money spent on the Apollo Program (23.5 billion dollars) paid for the development not only of the spacecraft and booster hardware but for the launch facilities, command and control centers, ground handling and operations support, system engineering tools, spacecraft systems technologies, test and verification hardware, trajectory analysis and software, and recovery systems. These developments accelerated advancements in other areas of space efforts such as communication satellites, navigation satellites, surveyance satellites and weather satellites. Without the infrastructure developed, as part of the Apollo Program, the remaining space elements might not have been developed and we might not be enjoying today’s benefits of our technology revolution, e.g. cell phones, personal computers, direct broadcast television channels, digital cameras and DVD’s. (Ref.1).
It is generally agreed that the United States needs to develop a comprehensive long-range energy plan. The United States has the best system engineers in the world and this is a job for them. There are many energy facts that have general agreement. The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day (Ref. 2) and imports roughly 70% of that oil at a cost of $700 billion dollars (Ref. T Boone Pickens). These dollars should be spent in this country developing our vast energy reserves and creating millions of jobs. Because of our poor energy policies over 1,000,000 oil industry jobs have been lost in the United States over the last few years (Ref. 3). The United States needs job creation not job loss.
The energy plan needs to concentrate on three major goals: 1. Dramatically increase domestic oil production, 2. Reduce our huge oil consumption, and 3. Improve our environment using clean energy. Goals and objectives need to be set and competitive system studies funded by the government Department of Energy. These preliminary studies can be performed in a relatively short time, several months.

To initiate the system studies, the first step is for the DOE to prepare a preliminary plan outline and requests for proposals (RFP). Industry teams respond with proposals and the DOE selects system study contractor or contractors. Progress is monitored and peer group reviews held. An industry-government review of the work is conducted and final reports evaluated. Additional RFPs are prepared and additional contracts awarded.

The plan needs to address technical and economic feasibility, the role of government in advanced technology and development, existing government regulations that need to be amended, new laws that need to be passed, industry’s role, environmental considerations, schedules, and costs. After preliminary plans have been evaluated contracts can be awarded to develop and implement the final energy plan or plans.

1. Dramatically increase domestic oil production.

As a minimum, the following domestic oil reserves will have to be evaluated: Offshore drilling; Artic National Wild Life Refuge; Oil shale; Coal liquification; and Bio fuel production. An energy plan objective might be to produce an additional total 5 million barrels of oil per day from these reserves and to save an additional total 5 million barrels of oil consumption daily within a reasonable time period, say, five years to ten years
.
Off shore drilling: The federal government estimates that the United States continental shelf holds 85.9 billion barrels of crude oil including 10.13 billion barrels off California (Ref.4). Setting a modest goal of producing one million barrels of oil per day from new off shore drilling, these reserves would last 235 years. We have the technology and all we need is get it done!

Artic National Wild Life Refuge: the Department of Energy estimates that the Artic National Wildlife Refuge contains up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (mean average of 10.4 billion barrels) and the potential for a major oil find (Ref. 5). At a conservative goal of producing one million barrels of oil per day these reserve would last 43.8 years.

Oil Shale: The Department of Energy estimates oil shale reserves beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are 2 trillion barrels of oil (Ref. 6). This oil can be extracted at a rate of 3.5 units of energy output to 1 unit of energy input. It is estimated that the potential oil extraction is 1 billion barrels per square mile with over 1000 square miles available. Producing oil at the rate of 1 million barrels per day these reserve would last 5479 years. Canada already produces over one million barrels of oil from its tar sands oil reserves.

Coal Liquification: Coal is America’s most abundant source of energy. The United States has about 27% of the world’s coal reserves, 270 billion short tons of recoverable coal (Ref. 7). The United States produced 1,132.5 million short tons of coal in 2005. Coal liquification is a process in which coal is converted to synthetic gasoline or diesel. German scientists developed the prcess in 1923 (Ref. 8). During the second world war Germany produced as much as 124,000 barrels of oil a day from this process keeping their war effort running for 5 years. The technology has been available for years and what is needed is incentives to attract major investment dollars. It would require about an additional 102 million short tons of coal each year to produce 1 million barrels of synthetic oil per day. This would be in addition to the current 1,132.5 million tons of coal mined per year. At these figures our coal reserves would last over 200 years.

Bio Fuel: The challenge of producing oil from bio fuel is to produce it within existing infrastructure. The United States is currently producing 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol from corn per year (178,082 barrels per day) (Ref. 9). A study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Ref. 10) indicates that corn ethanol has a positive energy balance output/input ratio of 1.34 (34% more output energy than needed to grow and harvest corn and distill it into ethanol). An acre of U. S. corn can b e processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol. Currently about 10 million acres of form land are devoted to corn for ethanol production. According to a study by Professor Pimentel, Cornel University, (Ref. 11) it takes 140 gallons of fossil fuel to grow and harvest the corn. Adding the energy cost of converting corn into ethanol Professor Pimentel calculated that it takes a total of 131,000 BTU’s to make 1 gallon of ethanol from corn, about 70% more energy than contained in a gallon of ethanol (77,000 BTU’s).

Switch grass (Prairie grass perennial summer crop) and poplar trees along with other bio fuels have the potential to displace 30% of current United States petroleum consumption. Switch grass grown for biofuel production can produce 540% more energy than needed to grow, harvest, and process into ethanol according to researchers at the University of Nebraska (Ref. 12). Test plots at Auburn University have produced up to 15 tons of dry biomass per acre enough to make 1150 gallon of ethanol per acre each year from switch grass (Ref. 13). At this production rate it would require 13.5 million acres (limited to one crop per year) to produce one million barrels of oil per day (365 million barrels per year). The American prairie has tens of million of acres. A California firm, Cupertino-AE Biofuels Inc. recently announced the opening in Butte, Montana of what it calls the first U.S. factory designed to make ethanol from wheat straw or grasses as potential ethanol materials.
2. Reduce our huge oil consumption.

Energy requirements are usually broken down into four categories: 1. Electrical power generation; 2. Transportation; 3. Residential and Commercial; and 4. Industrial processes. Electrical power generation is the largest user of energy; about 40% of the total energy used in the United States. However, electrical power generation only consumes about 1 million barrels of oil daily. More than 50% of the electrical power produced in the United States is by coal fired low efficient steam power plants. Transportation (auto’s, trucks, trains, airplanes etc.) consumes the major part of oil consumption, 13 million barrels of oil each day. Residential (climate control – heating, air conditioning, hot water) consumes less than 1 million barrels of oil daily and Industrial process consumes 4.5 million barrels of oil daily (Ref. 14).

Electrical Power Generation: The total annual energy consumption in the United States is 101 quadrillion BTU’s with electrical power generation consuming 40.6 quadrillion BTU’s (equivalent to 19 million barrels of oil daily). The current electrical power generated in the United States is 11 billion kilowatt hours each day (total generating capacity is 26 billion kilowatt hours per day) (Ref 15). This power is generated mainly using fossil coal (51%), nuclear (21%), natural gas (17%), hydroelectric and renewable energy (9%), and oil (2%). It is estimated that electricity use will increase 29% over the next 20 years (Ref. 16). Both generation and transmission capabilities need to be addressed. Transmission lines are critical to bringing the power generated by new resources to consumers. A ‘do nothing’ policy will lead to rolling blackouts and billions of dollars damage to the U. S. economy.
Typical coal fired power plants generate electricity at about 33% efficiency. This efficiency figure has not improved over many years. Advanced technology concepts to be considered for electrical power generation are high temperature gas turbine combined cycles, hydrogen – oxygen fuel cells combined with gas turbines (hybrid) and the use of waste heat for space heating and industrial heating to potentially achieve overall efficiencies of 70% to 80%. The Riverside, California sewage plant has introduced a 1-megawatt fuel cell utilizing biogas generated at the plant to provide one third of the water treatment plants power needs (Ref. 17).

Coal Gasification: Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products. . The hot gases resulting from clean coal gasification can be used to power a high temperature Brayton gas conversion cycle and the cycle waste heat can then be used to power a low temperature Rankine steam cycle similar to the steam cycle used today. The combined cycles would result in nearly doubling the overall conversion efficiency from 33% to over 50% resulting in 44% reduction in energy usage and a dramatic positive impact on our environment (Ref. 18). The technology is available considering that most aircraft engines use a high temperature open Brayton cycle and most power plants use a low temperature Rankine cycle.

Automobile and Transportation: Transportation requirements in the United States consume about 13 million barrels of oil each day. Passenger cars use at least 5 million barrels of oil per day. The practical thermodynamic efficiency limit for current automobile engines is about 37% and most engines achieve 20 to 25% efficiency. There are 135,568,000 registered vehicles in the United States. To save oil in automobile usage it is obvious we need a greater efficiency automobile engine. A fuel cell hydrogen engine offers 35 to 50% conversion efficiency. Fuel cells are proven and reliable power generators having been used in the space program on the Gemini spacecraft, Apollo missions and in the Space Shuttle program. Improving the automobile efficiency from 20% to 35% would save over 2 million barrels of oil each day.

3. Improve our environment using clean energy.

It has been suggested that renewable energy sources (solar, wind, and nuclear) be utilized in power generation to replace natural gas. In this way natural gas becomes available as fuel in automobiles and other transportation requirements thus saving millions of barrels of oil daily (Ref. T Boone Pickens).

Solar and Wind: Solar and wind have been proposed mainly for electrical power generation. Since most of the electrical power generated in this country is using coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric there is little potential for saving oil directly by substituting solar or wind. One key to save oil consumption is to use renewable energy to replace natural gas in electrical power generation and use the natural gas as fuel for automobiles. A second key is to produce hydrogen by renewable energy and use the hydrogen to replace oil consumption in automobiles. The most efficient use of solar energy would be to generate electrical power in space and beam it down to earth. A considerable effort has already been invested in the preliminary design study of a Solar Power System (SPS) to generate gigawatts of electrical power in space using solar cells and microwave the power back to earth (Ref.19). The benefit to generating the electrical power in space is that the sun’s energy is available continuously in Geosynchrous Orbit (GEO) and about 75% more abundant then the highest average daily solar insolation on earth (32.76 kwhrs/sq meter/day compared to 7.66 kwhrs/sq meter/day).

Residential and commercial heating, cooling, and hot water account for about 10.6 quadrillion BTU’S per year (over 10% of our total energy consumption). About 75% of this energy requirement is met by natural gas. Solar heating and cooling collectors could provide a significant portion of residential and commercial heating and cooling energy. The solar energy could significantly substitute for natural gas, and natural gas could then be used as fuel for cars and trucks. It is estimated that current flat plat solar collectors could save about 1.5 barrels of oil per square foot in 20 years. Advanced solar collector designs could improve that value by a factor of 3 (Ref. 19). To save one million barrels of oil per day would require about 2400 million square feet of collector area. If one assumed a 2000 square foot installation per building it would require 1.2 million installations.

Nuclear: Nuclear reactor power system technology is available. Currently about 21% of our electrical power is generated by nuclear fuel. Additional nuclear power generation has the potential to reduce our reliance on natural gas in power generation and free the natural gas for use in automobiles. Additionally electrical power from nuclear could be used to charge batteries in hybrid cars and generate hydrogen for fuel cell cars. Potentially hydrogen generated by nuclear could be piped into natural gas lines to enrich its hydrogen content.

Natural gas: There is about 1485 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the United States’ known deposits. Recently new deposits of natural gas have been discovered in Louisiana adding an estimated 250 trillion cubic feet (TCF) to our known deposits The federal government estimates that the sea floor could hold an additional 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Currently the United States consumes 24 TCF each year. Natural gas is used primarily in climate control (residential (22.5%) and commercial (14.2%)), industrial heating processes (31%) and electrical power generation (32.3%). Currently 17% of the electrical power generated in the United States is by use of natural gas. Substituting 5.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas as fuel for automobiles could save one million barrels of oil daily. Renewable energy sources could also be used to provide electrical power for recharging battery hybrid cars and that could result in significant reduction in gasoline requirements. Replacing the natural gas used in electrical power generation by renewable energy would free up the equivalent of 3.17 million barrels of oil per day for use in automobiles. Advanced technology is needed to tap into an estimated 200,000 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrate deposits in our ocean floors. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, 70-90%. This huge reserve of methane needs to be fully explored..

SUMMARY

The United States must become energy independent and even a major exporter of energy. The 700 billion dollars or so going out of this country for imported oil is not sustainable and the money must be spent in our country offering an era of unprecedented prosperity for the United States. In the next few years we should expect to increase our domestic oil production by 5 million barrels of oil per day or greater by off shore drilling, ANWR drilling and coal liquification. Replacing gasoline with natural gas for auto and truck usage can save 3 million barrels of oil daily. Natural gas cars and trucks have been in general use since the 1990’s or earlier. New equipment is now available to refuel natural gas cars overnight at home. Natural gas cars are the cleanest on the road that use internal combustion engines. Federal and state and local agencies are offering financial incentives for buying into the natural gas alternative. Currently natural gas from a home gas line in California is the equivalent of buying gasoline at $1.25 to $1.45 a gallon. Currently there are few natural gas automobiles, roughly a 200-mile range limit on a tank of natural gas, and few available refueling centers. The Honda GX retails for $24,590 or about $6,800 more than a standard Honda Civic. Buyers in California can count on a $3,000 state refund plus a $4,000 tax credit. The South Coast Air Quality Management District will pay $2,000 towards the $3,950 cost for home fueling machines (Ref. 20).
Advanced technology can result in additional oil savings by doubling automobile and power plant efficiencies with use of hydrogen fuel cell technology and coal gasification coupled electrical power generation. Biofuel technology and ocean floor development of methane hybrid deposits could ultimately give us an almost endless supply of energy. Renewable energy sources can be utilized for power generation to replace natural gas and make it available for automobile usage. Renewable energy can also be used in climate control and as a source of hydrogen to initiate a hydrogen economy. A meaningful energy plan needs to evaluate each potential source of new domestic oil production and energy savings. The United States needs to utilize its system engineering talent, the best in the world, to develop a comprehensive and non-political energy plan and industry and government must know its roles in our energy future
Similar to President Kennedy’s Apollo challenge achieving energy independence will be extremely difficult. Many will say it can’t be done and many difficult problems will have to be solved. In the past, the United States has overcome many challenges as huge as becoming energy independent. Its records of achievements are the envy of the world. The United States completed building the Panama Canal in 1914 after 34 years starting in 1880. The canal is one of the largest construction projects in history. It is 51 miles in length and required over 80,000 persons from many nations working on its construction. The canal has been profitable for over 100 years and nearly 1,000,000 ships have passed through the canal. The Hoover Dam construction started in 1933 and was completed in three years. It is one of the largest in the world and measures a height of 726.4 feet and a thickness of 660 feet at its base. The Hoover Dam cost the United States $44 million (adjusted for inflation $676 million). For over 70 years it has delivered approximately 2,074 megawatts of continuous power with about 56% of the power transmitted to California a distance of about 265 miles. Power from the dam sustains Las Vegas as one of the most exciting cities in the world.
The challenge of accomplishing energy independence is tremendous but as in the Apollo Program success is achievable with proper planning and implementation of a system engineered and demanding energy plan. If the United States could land a man on the moon in less than a decade why can’t the United States become energy independent? Brazil achieved energy independence why not the United States?

The End