Government Report Examines Alternative Energy Research

coondoggie points us to a NetworkWorld story about the Government Accountability Office's report on the state of advanced energy technology. The report notes that despite continued funding [PDF], U.S. reliance on oil has only dropped from 93% to 85% since 1973. It goes on to evaluate how the most prominent fields of research have developed in that time period, and where they are likely to go in the future.

Comments

85% of a growing amount

[BadAnalogyGuy]

A baby drinks more milk as a percentage of its meals than a grown bodybuilder does. However the bodybuilder drinks a far greater volume of milk than the baby ever would.

While the relative reliance on oil may have dropped 7 percentage points in that time, the total amount of oil consumed has grown by leaps and bounds. So while we have surely benefitted from the difference of what would have been and what actually is, it would be a mistake to assume that we are anywhere near weaned from oil. You could argue that based on the total volume of oil consumed that we are actually far more dependent on oil than we ever were.

It is a good trend, however, and I hope that in the next 25 years that we can reduce that number by another 10%.

Re:85% of a growing amount

[epine]

The consumption of oil has grown by "leaps and bounds" because oil was severely underpriced.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/briefing_book.pdf

This document shows that American fleet-average fuel economy peaked in 1987 and has declined about ten percent since, despite improvements in fuel consumption technology.

Seriously, with a correct oil price, America should presently have a 24 MPG fleet-average, a 10% improvement over two decades, not something hovering around 20 MPG after a 10% decline.

The difference would offset the 20% of the fuel supply we are now frantically replacing with ethanol, without having to actually make any ethanol.

I think the answer was pretty simple: allow the price of oil to slowly creep upward until the fleet-average fuel economy was tracking a 1 MPG/decade improvement curve. At some price, people will think twice about buying that SUV they don't really need. In my mind, that price would have been a good price, as it would have corresponded with sensible consumption choices.

The whole thing could have been rather slow, steady, and painless, but no, apparently catastrophism is the American way.

Fossil fuels != oil

[sodul]

Come on the US energy consumption is not 85% oil it is not even half of that. Note that the article correctly state fossil fuel, the summary translated to 'oil' incorrectly. I guess 'oil' makes a better headline.

Wikipedia numbers for 2005:

in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. The remaining 14% was supplied by nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and miscellaneous renewable energy sources.

Re:Fossil fuels != oil

[BadAnalogyGuy]

However, if you look at the graph showing the growth of energy production, you'll notice that non-renewable fossil fuel-based production is growing at a more rapid rate than the other sources put together. The only other source that could be considered growing is nuclear, and it's outpaced by fossil fuel production by quite a bit.

While there are certainly positive geo-political ramifications of reducing our reliance on oil, there is also a significant benefit in reducing fossil fuel usage on the whole. The environmental damage done due to fossil fuel extraction and combustion can be decreased. Likewise, since fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource (in our lifetimes, at least), we cannot continue to see that line grow forever. We must be focused on becoming more reliant on renewable energy sources.

Like any monopoly, having one source of energy as our primary source means that we lose flexibility if and when we are forced to consider other options. It is better to take the hit early (like Iceland) and reap the benefits down the road than to wait until the last minute and energy prices have climbed to astronomical levels.

Re:You can copy, but you can't.

[MozeeToby]

The document can be copied if it is copied as a whole, but you cannot copy individual pictures/graphs out of it. They have the owner's permission for the first, but not for the second.