Republicans Sought Algae Research Grants From Obama, Now They’re Attacking Him For It

[Lakhota]

By Rebecca Leber

Following President Obama’s “all-the-above” energy speech last Thursday, conservatives have ignored the speech and instead latched onto a single point about investing $14 million in algae-based biofuel research. “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this [algae] fuel that we can grow right here in the United States,” Obama said.

Newt Gingrich said the president’s comments are “worthy of Leno or Letterman.” The same candidate who wants moon colonies during his presidency attacked the president for a “weird” technology both Republicans and their industry allies have endorsed.

By mocking the president, conservatives ignore a history of party leaders and their industry allies endorsing algae research.

Republicans from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) have requested Department of Energy grants for algae research. All three lawmakers wrote that algae investments would reduce America’s oil use. For instance, Johanns wrote that an algae biotechnology center “would develop technology to decrease our dependence on imported oil.”

Republican allies in the oil industry have also invested in algae, including No. 1 oil lobbyist ConocoPhillips and ExonMobil, which sunk $600 million in algae biofuel research.

On energy, the administration is doing far more than budgeting for biofuel research. The White House’s FY 2013 budget provides billions for R&D and manufacturing in clean energy technologies, while higher fuel economy standards will reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, under Obama, domestic production of oil has reached record levels of quadruple the drilling rigs over the past three years.

More: Republicans Sought Algae Research Grants From Obama, Now They're Attacking Him For It

Big Oil Sees Promise in Pond Scum - CNBC

Exxon Sinks $600M Into Algae-Based Biofuels in Major Strategy Shift - NYTimes.com

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

it's hard to make fun of the other side when your own has done the same thing.



oh, who am i kidding? both sides do it all the time.

 

[Full-Auto]

By Rebecca Leber

Following President Obama’s “all-the-above” energy speech last Thursday, conservatives have ignored the speech and instead latched onto a single point about investing $14 million in algae-based biofuel research. “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this [algae] fuel that we can grow right here in the United States,” Obama said.

Newt Gingrich said the president’s comments are “worthy of Leno or Letterman.” The same candidate who wants moon colonies during his presidency attacked the president for a “weird” technology both Republicans and their industry allies have endorsed.

By mocking the president, conservatives ignore a history of party leaders and their industry allies endorsing algae research.

Republicans from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) have requested Department of Energy grants for algae research. All three lawmakers wrote that algae investments would reduce America’s oil use. For instance, Johanns wrote that an algae biotechnology center “would develop technology to decrease our dependence on imported oil.”

Republican allies in the oil industry have also invested in algae, including No. 1 oil lobbyist ConocoPhillips and ExonMobil, which sunk $600 million in algae biofuel research.

On energy, the administration is doing far more than budgeting for biofuel research. The White House’s FY 2013 budget provides billions for R&D and manufacturing in clean energy technologies, while higher fuel economy standards will reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, under Obama, domestic production of oil has reached record levels of quadruple the drilling rigs over the past three years.

More: Republicans Sought Algae Research Grants From Obama, Now They're Attacking Him For It

Big Oil Sees Promise in Pond Scum - CNBC

Exxon Sinks $600M Into Algae-Based Biofuels in Major Strategy Shift - NYTimes.com

Outstanding, giving democrats a good taste of their own medicine

 

[Lakhota]

Algae Biofuel Proposal, Now Mocked By Republicans, Used To Have Their Support

 

[ScienceRocks]

Algae Biofuel Proposal, Now Mocked By Republicans, Used To Have Their Support

So algae can work like Gas? Does it have the same amount of energy per gallon? Since republicans were endorsing it. I don't really understand how they can attack Obama.

 

[Mr. H.]

Of more worthy note are the investments by the petoleum industry into such such research.
The petroleum industry- favorite whipping boy of Democrats.
Hypocrites.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Researching alternatives and pretending alternatives are "shovel ready" to implement as a solution to our energy needs are two different things

 

[waltky]

Another Solyndra shaping up in Navy biofuels spending?...

McCain sees another Solyndra in Navy biofuels spending
3/15/12 - The Navy’s push to develop biofuels to run its fleet of planes and warships could devolve into a “Solyndra situation” for the Pentagon, a top Republican senator said today.

During Tuesday’s hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) compared the now-bankrupt solar energy company, into which the White House sank $535 million in loan guarantees, to Navy-led efforts in alternative energy. McCain hammered away at Navy Secretary Ray Mabus during the hearing over the Navy’s continued investment in biofuel technology. The Navy has spent more than $400 per gallon for roughly 20,000 gallons of algae-based biofuel for testing, McCain said. That kind of substantial investment in green fuels, especially during a time of shrinking defense budgets, is simply unacceptable, he said. Given the Navy’s recent track record in its alternative fuels program, McCain said, “maybe [this] will be another Solyndra situation.”

McCain told Mabus and committee members that he plans to introduce amendments to the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget to address the Navy’s alternative energy plans. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said he could not comment on what those proposed amendments might include, noting that floor debate on the defense bill for fiscal 2013 is months away. In response to McCain’s comments, Mabus argued that investment in alternative energy sources is key to relieving the Navy's dependance on foreign oil. "I think that we cannot afford not to do this," Mabus told the committee. "We cannot afford to be dependent on a worldwide commodity that has the price spikes and the price shocks that we have." Further, the Navy's operations accounts will likely suffer as the service continues to deal with the constantly changing price of foreign oil, Mabus pointed out.

That said, the Navy would never purchase any kind of alternative fuel at $400 per gallon, according to the service secretary. The Navy would only start buying biofuels en masse if alternative energy firms could provide that fuel at a commercially competitive price, Mabus said. But Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) pointed out that even at a competitive price, the Navy’s plan to use a “50/50 blend” of diesel fuel and a biofuel supplement would still cost $15 per gallon. Traditional JP-5 jet fuel used in the Navy’s fighter aircraft runs $4 to $5 per gallon on average, Inhofe said.

This is the second time this year that Republican lawmakers have lambasted the Navy’s alternative energy goals. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), a member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, took Mabus to task in February over the service’s plans. “Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?” Forbes asked at the time. Before Mabus could respond, the Virginia Republican took a clear shot at the secretary: “You’re not the secretary of the Energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy.”

Source

See also:

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s oil flimflam
15 Mar.`12 - Yes, of course, presidents have no direct control over gas prices. But the American people know something about this president and his disdain for oil. The “fuel of the past,” he contemptuously calls it. To the American worker who doesn’t commute by government motorcade and is getting fleeced every week at the pump, oil seems very much a fuel of the present — and of the foreseeable future.

President Obama incessantly claims energy open-mindedness, insisting that his policy is “all of the above.” Except, of course, for drilling:

●off the Mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants);

●off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there);

●in the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts);

●in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles International Airport);

●on federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office).

But the event that drove home the extent of Obama’s antipathy to nearby, abundant, available oil was his veto of the Keystone pipeline, after the most extensive environmental vetting of any pipeline in U.S. history. It gave the game away because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally, and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.

Obama boasts that, on his watch, production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama. “The American people aren’t stupid,” Obama said (Feb. 23), mocking “Drill, baby, drill.” The “only solution,” he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that “we start using less — that lowers the demand, prices come down.” Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home . . . that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.” So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?

MORE

 

[Chris]

Exxon has invested $700 million dollars in algae research.

 

[rdean]

That's way back when Republicans had "scientists". They've been chased out of the party. Now, if they want something, they ask Rick Perry to hold a "stadium power prayer" and they pray to "God". Didn't work for the fires, but I'm pretty sure it will next time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

GOP Playbook: Whatever it takes to beat Obama

By Rebecca Leber

Following President Obama’s “all-the-above” energy speech last Thursday, conservatives have ignored the speech and instead latched onto a single point about investing $14 million in algae-based biofuel research. “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this [algae] fuel that we can grow right here in the United States,” Obama said.

Newt Gingrich said the president’s comments are “worthy of Leno or Letterman.” The same candidate who wants moon colonies during his presidency attacked the president for a “weird” technology both Republicans and their industry allies have endorsed.

By mocking the president, conservatives ignore a history of party leaders and their industry allies endorsing algae research.

Republicans from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) have requested Department of Energy grants for algae research. All three lawmakers wrote that algae investments would reduce America’s oil use. For instance, Johanns wrote that an algae biotechnology center “would develop technology to decrease our dependence on imported oil.”

Republican allies in the oil industry have also invested in algae, including No. 1 oil lobbyist ConocoPhillips and ExonMobil, which sunk $600 million in algae biofuel research.

On energy, the administration is doing far more than budgeting for biofuel research. The White House’s FY 2013 budget provides billions for R&D and manufacturing in clean energy technologies, while higher fuel economy standards will reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, under Obama, domestic production of oil has reached record levels of quadruple the drilling rigs over the past three years.

More: Republicans Sought Algae Research Grants From Obama, Now They're Attacking Him For It

Big Oil Sees Promise in Pond Scum - CNBC

Exxon Sinks $600M Into Algae-Based Biofuels in Major Strategy Shift - NYTimes.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

Exxon has invested $700 million dollars in algae research.

Not even a drop in the bucket of what's needed to make algae a viable commercial fuel.

It will take decades to make algae a reliable fuel source on a national scale. We already have the capability to refine huge amounts of biodiesel yet we aren't doing it.

We have no coherent energy policy or long term plans and that is our biggest problem.

 

[rdean]

Companies don't grow much through research, they grow through acquisition. Whatever Exxon spends, I bet they get it back as subsidies and it's good PR.