Two OU professors, both experts on the subjects of oil and energy, gave contending responses to President Bushs ideas regarding alternate energy sources. Although they agree with some of Bushs points, they have varying views on a solution to the energy crisis.

In Bushs State of the Union, he said he intends to reduce Americas gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. He plans to increase the use of other fuels by more than five times what the current law requires.

By 2017, Bush said he wants to decrease gas usage by 8.5 billion gallons a year. To achieve these goals, Bush plans to provide alternate sources of fuel and increase the amount of oil produced domestically.

Charles J. Mankin, director and regents professor of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, supports Bushs desire to change fuel sources, but he said not all of Bushs options are realistic. Even the plausible ones will take an extended period of time to implement nationwide.

Larry Grillot, dean of the College of Earth and Energy and director of Sarkeys Energy Center, said there is plenty of oil. Bush was just responding to public pressures, because politics and the locations of the largest oil reserves in places like Saudi Arabia and Iraq inhibit the U.S. from attaining energy security, he said.

The U.S. currently imports about 60 percent of its gasoline and jet fuel and more than 80 percent of its diesel. Mankin agreed with Bushs decision to find alternate and domestically produced fuel sources.

Mankin said options other than just corn ethanol are necessary. Corn is one of Americas major exports and, thus, is financially beneficial for the country. The U.S. doesnt produce enough corn to provide enough energy to fuel the country, he said.

It would probably take all the corn were producing now to get even close to the amount of fuel the president is talking about, Mankin said. In addition, converting corn ethanol to fuel requires a significant amount of energy, he said.

The problem with ethanol is it takes more energy to produce it. Youre losing energy from the start, Mankin said.

Mankin said the solution to the United States energy woes can be found in following the examples of other countries.

We should do what the rest of the world does. Were the only country that uses an extensive amount of gasoline. Most countries run on diesel, Mankin said.

Americas cars and small vehicles almost universally depend on gasoline. Only large trucks require diesel, he said.

Instead of producing biodiesel from plant products, Mankin said America should start converting natural gas into diesel.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, can be converted to diesel comparatively simply and is stable once converted, he said.

Using natural gas as fuel is beneficial because there is an immense supply worldwide, Mankin said. The process of conversion does not require as much energy as corn conversion does, and the end product is much more stable and more easily transferable than ethanol products.

However, because the United States does not possess a substantial quantity of natural gas, it would have to import gas. Mankin said America could build liquefiers in countries where natural gas is abundant and cheap. The gas could then be transported to the U.S. already in fuel form.

Grillot does not believe any one alternate fuel will be sufficient to replace oil, he said. A combination of solar energy, wind power, nuclear and hydrogen will be required to wean the country off gasoline and oil.

I think its important to keep the ultimate objectives in mind, Grillot said.



hello there & you too