|
Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors
|
||||
Responsible development of fossil fuels?The energy department's strategic unconventional fuels fantasyPosted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 12:41 PM on 04 Oct 2007The DOE's Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force has issued its surreal final report: Responsible development of America's oil shale, tar sands, heavy oil, coal, and oil resources amenable to recovery by carbon dioxide injection, by private industry, supported and encouraged by government actions to reduce uncertainties and stimulate investment, could supply all of the Department of Defense's domestic fuels demand by 2016, and supply upwards of 7 million barrels [a day] of domestically produced liquid fuels to domestic markets by 2035. Seriously. How does the Task Force explain how one can have "responsible development" of resources to an extent that would spell certain doom for the climate? In this report, they insist "the integrated program could achieve these goals in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner." In Volume II, they have a "Carbon Management Cross-Cut Plan" whose first two objectives are:
First off, using captured CO2 from unconventional oil to extract more oil from the ground through EOR is not the same as carbon sequestration, as I have previously argued. Second, it is very unlikely that oil shale, tar sands, or liquid coal, could achieve emissions parity with conventional petroleum even with carbon capture. Third, we need to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions -- and hence U.S. oil consumption -- 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, not sharply increase the dirtiest forms of unconventional oil. What are the details of the fantasy? Incremental Production Objectives (2035)
You read that right -- 2.5 million barrels a day of oil shale and 2.6 million barrels a day of coal liquids. Thankfully, there is no chance whatsoever this will happen, as DOE itself knows. I actually attended a preliminary briefing of this study many months ago where leading energy experts ridiculed these conclusions and a senior DOE official wouldn't defend them. Still, good to see our tax dollars at work so productively. In case you want to know who signed their names to this, here goes: Task Force Members CABINET OFFICERS AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES STATE GOVERNORS AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES OF POTENTIALLY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES But what about the communities impacted by catastrophic climate change? Where were This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
|
sign in
Search Gristmill
Using Gristmill
Recent Comments
|
|||