article: 14 Feb 06 (part 2)
An Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Dear President Bush:
I am very favorably impressed and I applaud you for addressing America’s addiction to oil with remarkable frankness in your State of the Union speech. I am glad that we agree on the problem. May I suggest an alternative solution that I hope you will agree will better serve our great nation?
Rather than set a goal of replacing more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025, why not make a much bolder move? Commit to reducing our use of fossil petroleum by 95 percent within four years. Not only can we do this, I believe we must do it for the sake of our environment, our economy, our national security and our future as a great nation leading the world.
While I know you hear conflicting opinions on the effect of greenhouse gasses, if we could err on the side of caution, while actually improving our economy and our national security, would it not make sense to do so?
How long do you think that we, as a nation, can continue to borrow $2 billion dollars a day to keep our country afloat financially? What percentage of that does our imported oil represent? Does it not make sense to cut that percentage to zero?
The American military (except for a few submarines) without gasoline, diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel is an extremely expensive and highly lethal paperweight. Does it not make sense, as a matter of national security, to eliminate our military’s dependence on foreign oil?
Given that we need to do this, we should ask:
- Can it be done?
- If so, how can we do it?
- How soon can we do it?
- How can we do it in such a matter as to improve our economy and the quality of our lives?
While the last question may seem audacious, unless we ask it we will never get an answer.
As I stated in the second paragraph of this letter, we can do this. Let us then answer the other three questions.
We have the technology to do this. It is called pyrolysis. By heating plant matter to a very high temperature in a reduced oxygen environment, we get approximately 10% of the plant mass converted to methane, 15% to carbon coke and 75% converted to sludge. The sludge is actually a reasonably high grade, very sweet (i.e., very low to no sulfur content - I know I do not need to explain this to you, Mr. President, but this is an open letter.) crude oil. Burning the carbon coke produces more than enough heat to sustain the process (to use the technical term, the process is exothermic). This is not pie in the sky technology that may be available in twenty years. Agribusiness heavyweight Con-Agra is part of a joint venture currently operating the first commercial-scale plant in Carthage, Missouri. Using a slight variation on straight pyrolysis (i.e., injecting water to get more gasses and less coke) it turns 200 tons of low-value, organic and agricultural waste per day into valuable energy and industrial-use products including crude oil.
Our timeframe for implementing this depends on the answer to two questions:
- How soon can the existing refineries install pyrolysis units?
- How soon can American farmers produce enough biomass to feed those pyrolysis units?
Our nation’s history in WWII provides ample historic precedent to say we can complete the transition within four years or less. Not only did we become the munitions supplier to the allies, our farmers also fed the allies and (as part of a Department of Agriculture program) provided “Hemp for Victory.”
I bring up the last point because by using one third to one half of the fallow farmland in the U.S. we can produce enough biomass in the form of hemp to power all of our transportation. No other plant produces anywhere near as much biomass per acre. Of course hemp is also known as marijuana, and there, as they say, is the rub. To transition from a fossil fuel economy to a biomass economy would require changes in the law to allow farmers to legally grow industrial hemp, the agricultural equivalent of non-alcohol beer.
As for the refineries, we could justify giving them a 200% tax credit for the expenses incurred in adding the pyrolysis units (savings in defense spending alone make this a worthwhile investment). The oil companies spend money on exploration, drilling and transporting crude; they make money on refining, distributing and retailing gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. Not only are their expenses for exploration and drilling going up, but they may reach a point soon when they cannot get sufficient crude to refine and sell regardless of the cost according to some experts. Switching to biomass eliminates their greatest expenses while guaranteeing a virtually unlimited supply of relatively cheap, high-grade crude. Studies have shown that biomass can compete economically with crude at $30 to $35 per barrel. How much gasoline can the oil companies sell at $1.25 to $1.50 per gallon? By converting to biomass the oil companies also realize multi-million dollar windfalls in the form of massive "carbon credits" that they can sell to other industries (including those in other countries) working to meet Kyoto limits. And, by eliminating any possibility of oil spills and working to reduce greenhouse gasses, the oil companies become environmental good guys. Additionally, a switch to biomass would also make it feasible to build additional refineries in inland areas, far from where oil could arrive by tankers (e.g., the Gulf Coast) but close to where the biomass grows. Given the record of the Victory Ships program in WWII I have no doubt that we could convert all existing refineries within four years.
President Carter referred to his energy program as, “the moral equivalent of war,” therefore I believe the references to WWII are appropriate. You need to challenge our generation to achieve energy independence in the amount of time it took our parents’ generation to win WWII.
By using biomass we also eliminate the need to depend on sources outside the US for our energy supply. This not only has a positive impact on our balance of trade, it also removes petroleum from the list of "American interests" abroad that have to be defended, with a consequent reduction in the Defense budget, not to mention the lives saved. And it means that our foreign policy need not depend on which country has how much oil. Do we really want a new American century of an empire driven by its need to exploit other countries? Wouldn't we rather have a true American century based on self-reliance and producing enough to share?
A shift to biomass will improve our economy and the quality of our lives in a number of other ways:
- Our balance of trade deficit would drop by the amount we currently spend on imported oil.
- Shifting to a renewable resource insures our supply of gasoline, at a reasonable price past the foreseeable future.
- A cost of $35 to $40 per barrel (or less) for biomass crude would mean a drop in the cost of gasoline and diesel, there by cutting transportation costs and making our economy even more competitive.
- By using plants that we grow (biomass), we reduce the amount of fossil carbon released into the atmosphere to zero. We actually remove carbon from the atmosphere unless we use all of the plant, including the root system. While not the entire answer to the problem of global warming, this is a major and necessary step in the right direction, and one in which America can and should lead by example.
- An added ecological benefit comes in elimination of spills by oil tankers.
- Biomass becomes the cash crop to make family farming viable economically. Simply exempting up to (to pick a number; this is obviously negotiable) 640 acres of biomass land from taxes, while taxing any thing more than (once again, a negotiable number) 3,200 acres of biomass at a higher rate would bring the family farm back to America almost overnight. While a corporation with land in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Canada might find it more cost effective to import food than grow it here, a family farm will grow food as part of a crop rotation plan. There is no excuse (other than the interests of multinational agribusiness concerns) for the U.S. to be a net importer of food.
- Having a cash crop that replenishes the soil in fallow fields, and that does not require pesticides and/or fertilizers will also make it feasible, for farmers who choose to, to switch to organic farming.
Gandhi said, "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems." We can choose a future based on fear, hate and greed, as an empire taking what it sees as necessary for its survival. Or we can choose a future based on hope, love and a celebration of the abundant universe where we move back toward self-sufficiency and sharing.
Mr. President, I call on you to lead our great nation in the direction that you and I both know is right. We can do this and for the sake of our country and our posterity we must do this.
God bless you and our great nation.
Sincerely,
Geo. McCalip
