Dear Editor:
I sent this letter to Jared Huffman and interestingly got not response. I thought you might be interested in reading it as it really points to the serious issues caused by no longer using petroleum and other potential energy producing scenarios which the current Biden Administration and the state of California refuse to acknowledge only relaying on solar and wind.
Regards
Peter Stonebraker, PhD
Novato
Mr. Jared Huffman
US Congressman
1527 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman:
I have read recently about your progressive stance regarding crude oil leasing on Federal Land, no imports of crude, limited sourcing of fracking products (gas and liquids), coal, natural gas, in favor of the Green Initiative I believe your views are somewhat lacking important information and I like to explain to you the information you are missing and why these progressive ideas are not looking to the future.
- You will never get rid of gasoline or diesel fuel because gasoline cars, diesel cars and trucks, airplanes, railroad engines, ships and lastly Ag equipment that harvests the crops that produce green products will need petroleum-based fuels well past 2030. In fact, using crude oil-based products for more chemicals production is a better way to use them than producing fuels. However, there are no other large-scale production of fuels available from other cheap raw materials. Refineries produce lubricating oil base stocks from crudes that are used to produce lubricants for transportation, manufacturing and other application requiring lubricants. Producing more ethanol for fuels goes against food production. Our global transportation systems need crude oil, fracking liquids plus Fischer-Tropsch’s produced hydrocarbons, otherwise they will be missing and in short supply. Windmills don’t operate when they freeze up in cold weather or under no wind situations. Solar panels don’t operate with a foot of snow on them or at night.
- Secondly, refined petroleum-based products are needed in large supply to help produce the 60-80,000 industrial chemicals used in the US every day. We could buy these products from the Middle East, Russia, China or the few friends we have left in the EU, but at a significant increased cost. Your program could hurt our chemical industry and maybe put some of them out of business.
- Not only do refined petroleum products support the chemical industry, but our pharmaceutical industry would be missing many important starting reagents. Good way to ruin the Pharma industry as well and buy more drugs from China
- Solar and wind with requires Lithium based batteries. Since environment activists are blocking opening of new Lithium mines, just how are we going to get all the batteries for the proposed manufacture of new electric vehicles and building huge lithium-based battery storage facilities to store wind and solar energy? Add to that cobalt and nickel. More purchases from our global enemies!
- The Green New Deal seems to forget about atomic energy. There is not a more efficient 24/7 way to produce carbon free energy than atomic. 70-80 years from now, scientists will know how to reuse the waste atomics products that have been stored. Why not start now? Safe technology is available now and needs to be considered.
- Natural gas and coal are the perfect feedstocks for producing Fischer-Tropsch’s (F-T) hydrocarbon liquids. These liquids can support the chemicals and pharma industries as well as producing fuels and light viscosity lubricants. You have likely never heard of this approach for hydrocarbon feedstocks production. There are plants around the world with this technology. More plants are needed if any of your 2030 mandate projects are meet. The argument that F-T technology would be too expensive needs to be compared with satisfying the cost of goods associated with producing the green plan.
- You are likely one of those democrats that’s supporting Gina McCarthy! Censoring content on the huge costs of a force-fed green energy transition seems something you are trying to hide. It’s time to come clean and stand up to what the true greening of our plant requires. If the US goes 100% green, it represents only 15 % of the total globe emissions. If the rest of the world is going to go green, they will need crude oil, natural gas and other ways to make fuels and chemical products to even have a chance of meeting any Global standard.
Regards,
Peter M. Stonebraker, PhD
Retired, Industrial Chemical Manufacturer
Retired, Instructor, UC Berkeley Extension teaching Organic and Green Chemistry
Leave a Reply