Roscoe Bartlett is pushing the peak oil message hard.  The following text is the full transcript of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett's third Special Order speech to the US Congress regarding Peak Oil.

[Congressional Record: May 3, 2005 (House)]
[Page H2809-H2813]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr03my05-146]                        

                              {time}  2320
 
                                PEAK OIL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett)
is recognized until midnight.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I read a
treatise written by Matt Savinar, and I was galvanized by his
introduction. Let me read it.
  ``Dear reader,'' he begins, ``civilization as we know it is coming to
an end soon. This is not the whacky proclamation of a doomsday cult,
apocalypse Bible prophesy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather,
it is the scientific conclusion of the best-paid, most widely respected
geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are
rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely
terrified by a phenomenon known as global peak oil.''
  Mr. Speaker, in the weeks since I read this, I have checked with a
large number of experts in this area across the country and indeed
around the world. He could be right. He will be right unless we
appropriately address this big challenge which faces the world and
particularly faces the United States, and that is what we will be
talking about in our Special Order this evening.
  I have been joined by the gentleman from the eastern shore of
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), one of my colleagues who shares a concern in
this area of energy, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak for just a
couple of minutes because the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett)
has a fascinating story to tell, one that richly deserves everybody's
attention.
  But, just briefly, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will talk about energy,
peak oil. As the demand increases enormously, the supply of the fossil
fuel that we are using continues to decrease. We know that energy is
power, and energy is what drives the Nation's economy. And we have
assumed for a long time, for decades anyway, that energy supplies have
a bottomless well. And that is correct. The energy source at the bottom
of the well is bottomless. It is endless. But what is at the bottom of
that well is not oil. It is not even natural gas. It is not coal. What
lies at the bottom of the bottomless well is our intellect, our logic,
our knowledge, our know-how.
  We used to the light our homes with whale oil. They did not stop
lighting homes because we ran out of whales, thank goodness; but we
transitioned to a number of other things. We used to use just wood all
over the world, and thank goodness we transitioned from wood to coal
because we were tearing our forests down, and there are a lot better
uses for wood than to burn that wood.
  We transitioned for our transportation needs and many other needs
from coal to oil, and oil is a lot cleaner and it is a lot more
efficient. Then we went from oil and we found that natural gas is
cleaner yet and more efficient than oil. We also began to realize that
coal has more hydrogen than wood. Oil has more hydrogen in its content
than coal. Natural gas has more hydrogen than oil. The transition
through our energy sources has not come about because we ran out of
those energy sources. It has come about because we got a little
smarter. Our intellect, our quest for knowledge, our curiosity about
something that is better overtook the status quo.
  And when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) talks about peak
oil, not only do we need to move away from the status quo when we hear
his words about fossil fuel; it is essential. There is a sense of
urgency to move away. In all our measurements of oil or natural gas,
whenever one looks at a heater in their home, whether it is their oil
furnace, a Carison heater or whatever it is, it is measured in Btus.
  I want to show a number. This is a 1 with 15 zeros. That is 1
quadrillion. In 1910 we used 7 quadrillion Btus in the United States.
In 1954 we used 35 quadrillion Btus, energy demand increase. Right now
we use 100 quadrillion Btus, and that is not slowing down.
  What we need in this country is logic and intellect to move us away
from an energy source that has now lost its usefulness for a number of
reasons. It is putting carbon dioxide into our atmosphere faster than
we have seen that infusion of carbon dioxide in the last 400,000 years,
and our supply is diminishing quickly as our demand is increasing even
faster.
  There are a number of energy sources. The gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bartlett) will talk about some of them. We will have these on a
number of occasions. We are looking at nuclear. We are looking at
solar. We are looking at wind. We are looking at hydrogen. We are
looking at a number of alternatives. But before we have the technology
to move into those alternatives for energy security, which means energy
independence, the transition has got to be vastly improved efficiency
for oil, for natural gas, to move into biofuels, and I am not talking
about ethanol, which is corn which will feed the world. I am not
talking about biodiesel, which is soy beans, which is used to feed the
world. What I am talking about are other sources like certain grass or
poplar trees, which farmers

[[Page H2810]]

can grow, which they can use to produce.
  So peak oil, the transition to a new energy source, has got to come
now. We cannot wait a decade. It is vastly important.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for
yielding to me and I urge the Speaker to listen to the words of the
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) was talking about growth in the use of energy; and I
have here some curves, some exponential curves. Ordinarily, when people
think about growth, they may think about a straight line. And on the
bottom here it shows the extrapolation of 2 percent growth starting at
this point. If it is a straight line, it would look like that. But that
is not 2 percent growth because every year we are growing something
less than 2 percent. To be 2 percent growth, one has got to grow 2
percent more than they were the last year, and that is called
exponential growth, and this is a 2 percent growth curve for
exponential growth, just 2 percent.
  The next curve here is a 4 percent exponential growth curve and then
5 percent. And I put on here the growth curve that China has been
following, and that is a 10 percent growth curve. In just 7 years, if
they are growing at 10 percent, they double. They double again in the
next 7 years; so in just 14 years, they are four times bigger. They
double again in the next 7 years so that at 21 years it is eight times
bigger. That is why this curve is so sharp.
  China is now following this growth curve. It is very difficult for
one's economy to grow at 10 percent without their energy use growing at
somewhere near 10 percent. So we need to keep that in mind as we go
through the charts that are going to follow this, that China is growing
at this rate. The world, by the way, grew last year at 5 percent. We
grew probably a bit over 2 percent in this country. Of course, we were
way ahead to start with; so with our 2 percent growth, we are still way
out in front of everybody else in terms of the amount of energy we use.

                              {time}  2330

  As a matter of fact, the next chart shows some figures which alarmed
30 of the leading figures in our country: Jim Woolsey and McFarland and
Frank Gaffney and 27 others who wrote a letter to the President just a
few weeks ago, and they noted to the President that we have only two
percent of the world's oil reserves. By the way, from that two percent,
we are generating eight percent of the world's oil. And what that
means, of course, is that we are getting four times as much oil
relatively out of each of our wells as the world gets out of their
average wells, so we are really good at pumping oil. In fact, we are so
good at pumping oil that just recently, the Saudis came here to find
out how we do it, how we get out those last dribs and drabs from our
oil reservoirs, because we have been doing this for a very long time.
We represent a bit less than 5 percent of the world's population, one
person in 22 in the world, but we consume 25 percent of the world's
energy, and we are importing about two-thirds of that. And, as the
President himself said, a lot of that oil comes from countries that do
not even like us.
  These 30 people, about half of them were retired generals and
admirals. There were several retired secretaries of previous
administrations. These were really the leaders in America that wrote to
the President: Mr. President, this is an unacceptable national security
risk that we have only two percent of the world's oil reserves and we
use 25 percent of the world's oil, and we import two-thirds of that. By
the way, that is up from about one-third that we imported during the
Arab oil embargo. We peaked in 1970. As a matter of fact, the next
chart shows when we peaked and we can get a better idea of this.
  To explain how this curve got here, I have to go back about six
decades. It was in the 1940s and 1950s, a scientist at the Shell Oil
Company named M. King Hubbert was watching the exploitation and
exhaustion of oil fields, and he noted that each of those fields
followed a bell curve. The oil came out very rapidly at first and then,
when it reached a peak, at which time he noted about half of the field
had been pumped, and then it stands to reason the last oil out of the
field is going to be harder to get, so there was now a downslope. So in
1956 he kind of guessed at the additional fields that we were going to
find in this country, and he mathematically calculated when we should
peak, and he thought that would be in the early 1970s, and he made this
prediction in 1956. As a matter of fact, we did peak in 1970.
  Now, his curve is the smooth curve here, his projected curve, and he
did that back in 1956, and the data points here, the rougher curve, the
actual data points which fall remarkably near his curve, Prudhoe Bay,
the Alaska oil, that occurred after we were already on the down slope
of what is called Hubbert's Peak here, and we see what Prudhoe Bay did.
And then we are going to go to a chart just after this that shows the
different places we get oil from in our country.
  The red curve here shows Russia, and when the Soviet Union was
falling apart, they had more oil than we, so they peaked higher. When
the Soviet Union was falling apart, they did very poorly and, as a
matter of fact, there is now a little secondary peak, here is a
recovered one, but it is on down; the first peak was considerably
higher than the second peak.
  The second chart shows where we get our oil from. A great deal of it
came from Texas. I saw some early photographs of some of the oil fields
in Texas, and I will tell my colleagues, the oil derricks were about as
close together as trees in a forest, just an incredible bonanza of
derricks down there getting this oil out of the ground. The rest of the
United States is the big area here, natural gas liquids, we have
learned how to liquefy natural gas, and now that is supplementing the
petroleum.
  There are two parts of this curve that I want to pay special
attention to. One of them is Alaska here, that is Prudhoe Bay. And
notice that it was just a little blip in the downslope here from
Prudhoe Bay, we are still going down. It delayed it just a little; it
never got back to the peak production in 1970. By the way, we are now
sliding down this curve and we produce about half as much oil now as we
did in 1970.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues can remember all of the
hullabaloo about the enormous finds of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That
was going to solve our energy problems for the foreseeable future. What
that turned out to be is this little yellow here. That is all there was
to it. And again, it did not bring us back to where we were in 1970; we
are still sliding down Hubbert's Peak.
  I would like to come back to the Alaska oil for just a moment. We are
now talking about going into ANWR. It really does not matter whether
one is for going into ANWR or one thinks that is a pristine wilderness
that we should not drill in, because the amount of oil in ANWR is
probably not more than half of this. Even if it were that much, it is
not going to come on line; the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) says it may be 10
years before it comes on line, and it is really not going to make
enough difference to matter. My concern is that if we drill in ANWR,
Americans will think, gee, we have solved our energy problem, we are
drilling in ANWR. It will be little more than a nit in terms of the
enormous amounts of oil that we use. That kind of helps us put ANWR in
perspective, because this is Prudhoe Bay, which may be twice as large
as ANWR. So it kind of gives us a picture of what we can expect from
ANWR.
  The next chart is a generic chart which kind of shows us where we
are, very probably where we are, and we have here only a two percent
growth. Remember those curves I showed earlier? This is only the two
percent growth curve. But notice what happens: it gets steeper and
steeper as we go out. That is the interesting thing about exponential
growth. The blue curve here is the available oil. Now, obviously, the
use of oil and the production of oil paralleled each other going up the
slope because nobody was storing it in large reservoirs anywhere. The
yellow area between the amount of oil that can be produced and the oil
that we would like to use represents the deficit. We do not even have
to get to peak oil to have a problem, as the curve shows here, because
we start deviating from this curve before we get

[[Page H2811]]

to the peak of the curve. So we might expect, if we are at this point
where the arrow points here, we might expect it for the next couple of
years or so that it will be marginally greater increases in the
production of oil, but they will not begin to keep up with the
increased demand for oil.
  Last year, for instance, China increased their oil imports about 25
percent. They now are the number two importer in the world. They have
replaced Japan as the number two importer in the world. Of course, we
are number one. We import more oil than anyone else in the world. India
is following closely behind China. The Third World is now
industrializing and probably, one of the things that we could most
productively do would be to help India and help China and help the
Third World countries who are industrializing to do it more
efficiently. They are not only industrializing 30, 40 years after we
did; they are kind of following the same path that we followed and
using very inefficient techniques. So we could help alleviate the
world's energy problem by helping these countries, which are now
following us by 30 years or more in industrialization, to use
techniques that are more efficient, which would make more oil available
for everyone.
  The next chart shows the discovery of oil, and the discovery of oil,
if my colleagues see, that peaked for the world back here before 1970,
and it peaked for the United States considerably before that. So
discoveries peak a long time before consumption, and they are down,
down, down now. I just had a paper sent to me that says that there is a
whole lot more oil out there that we have not found.

                              {time}  2340

  I hope that is true. But whether it is true or not for the moment is
not going to make much difference, because it is not going to come on
line, as Chairman Young says, for maybe 10 years. And in 10 years we
are going to be sliding down Hubbert's Peak. So if there is a lot more
oil out there, the most it will do is kind of slow our descent down
Hubbert's Peak. We cannot escape the reality that the world production
of oil will peak, many believe that it has peaked, and the demand for
oil is certainly not going to peak. That is going to keep on going up.
  The next chart shows something very interesting, that is, that
drilling more will not help. And this is an interesting chart, because
what it shows, the green shows the discoveries above use by the United
States, and the red shows when we started to run a deficit.
  What you see is in the 1980ish time zone, the yellow here shows the
wells that we drilled. And notice this big spike in the number of wells
we drilled. This was early in the Reagan administration.
  Now, President Reagan recognized that we had a problem. We were
already sliding down Hubbert's Peak. And he thought that the reason
that we did not have more oil was simply because they did not have
enough incentive to drill for more oil. And so he gave them incentives
to drill for oil, and these incentives did work, they did drill for
oil; but notice the increased drilling for oil simply followed an ever-
decreasing discovery of oil with increased use, so now we have been
operating in the red for a long time.
  Notice that in spite of enormously increased profits, the industry is
not drilling very many more wells. Why are they not drilling many more
wells? It quite obviously is because they have done a lot of
exploration, we are really pretty good at that today, and we use
seismic and 3-D and computers. And if they thought there was a whole
lot more oil out there to be found, they would be drilling more wells,
because they certainly have the capital to do that now.
  There is another dimension in this story that our next chart shows
for us. And this is what is happening around the world. And I want to
pay particular attention to China. China is now, remember, the number
two importer in the world, 1.3 billion people, with an economy growing,
remember that 10 percent curve, very sharp growth in their economy. And
they are now scouring the world for oil.
  They have contracts in Canada for oil, in Colombia, Venezuela,
Brazil, Argentina, a number of them in the Middle East and Africa. They
are now negotiating with Russia for oil there. They are talking with
Russia about building a pipeline from the Sakhalin Island, in the
Russian far east. Russia spans 11 time zones.
  This ought to be colored green here, because Russia comes clear
around here, nearly up to Alaska. They cover 11 time zones. And their
far eastern oil is so far away from their major population centers,
that they just cannot get it there over this large expanse.
  And so now they are talking about a pipeline that would carry it down
to China and perhaps down to the Korean Peninsula. By the way, they
negotiated for an oil company in our country, and were just barely out-
bid. They may be back bidding for oil companies in our country. They
now control a number of assets around the world to make sure that they
have access to this oil.
  For instance, for a number of years now they have had ports at both
ends of the Panama Canal. A poll, kind of an informal poll, was
conducted in India and China over a several-month period by sending
people that would just talk to people across the spectrum of their
society there to ask them about energy and the future, and there is
pretty broad knowledge in both of those countries that energy is going
to be an increasing problem.
  And in China they found a big recognition that China was dependent on
the sea lanes for their oil, and they do not control the sea lanes. The
United States controls the sea lanes. And so China is know aggressively
developing a blue water navy. By a blue water navy, I mean a navy that
operates in the oceans of the world. Many countries have a navy, but
most of them are designed to protect the country close in.
  Only we now, since the Soviets and the Russians have pulled back,
only we now have a blue water navy that controls the world's oceans.
And China recognizes that we could, if we wished, cut off their oil
supply. And so they now are aggressively developing, among other
armaments, a blue water navy.
  By the way, last year our trade deficit with China was $162 billion.
So it is not that they are without resources to develop this blue water
navy. The next chart is a very interesting one, and Congressman
Gilchrest talked about this. And this shows the transition from one
fuel to another. And notice the lower brown curve here is wood.
  And we really started using wood when we learned how to make steel.
As a matter of fact, the hills, the mountains of New England were
largely denuded of trees. There are now more forests in New Hampshire
than there were when the Industrial Revolution began here, because it
began in England a bit sooner, and they were cutting trees from New
England to take to England.
  As a matter of fact, the Industrial Revolution almost foundered
because, as Congressman Gilchrest mentioned, we were exhausting the
forest and cutting the trees for energy, and then we discovered coal.
And notice how much greater the economy became, because over here is
quadrillion BTUs. Remember you talked about BTUs, these are quadrillion
BTUs over here. I think you were up, what, over a hundred quadrillion
BTUs? Here it is 70. We are now up over a hundred quadrillion BTUs.
  And then we discovered oil. And here it goes. Up to a hundred
quadrillion BTUs total energy production. By the way, the lower curve
here is a breakout of these, and it shows what maybe I hope is the
future, what better be the future, or the future is pretty grim, that
is, some alternatives to fossil fuels. Those are things like nuclear
and solar and wind. They are so far down here in the noise level you do
not see them so we have blown it up.
  By the way, you do not see this big red peak here, because this
combines petroleum and natural gas which come together, and here they
are separated so you add this to this, you will get this big peak up
here.
  This explains some of the characteristics that alternatives must
have, and that is energy density. Why were the Btus so much higher with
coal and enormously higher with oil? And Congressman Gilchrest
mentioned this, it is the energy density there.
  Give you a little example of energy density. At maybe 25 percent
efficiency only, because in your internal combustion engine you are
lucky if you get 25

[[Page H2812]]

percent efficiency, which is the reason that you have that big radiator
and all those pipes and fins to get rid of the heat. A barrel of oil
contains the energy of 25,000 man-hours of labor.
  That is the equivalent of having 12 people work for you full time for
a whole year. And it costs you about $100, $50 for the oil, that is
about what it was today, maybe another $50 to refine it. So you have
got 42 gallons at $2-something a gallon. That is about $100, is it not?
And that $100 will buy you the work equivalent, the energy equivalent
of 25,000 man-hours of labor.
  So when we are looking for something to replace these fossil fuels,
we have got to find something with a lot of energy density, or we are
going to have to change the way we live and change the way we use
energy. You may have trouble calibrating that 25,000 man-hours and 12
man-years, but let me give you a little example that it may be easier
to identify with, and that is what your car does with a gallon of gas,
a gallon of gas, not very big.
  By the way, still cheaper than water in the grocery store, at $2-and-
something a gallon, unless you are buying it in Wal-Mart or KMart a
gallon at a time. But in the little bottles you buy it in, it is much
more expensive than gas. Recently, I went with my brother-in-law and
sister-in-law in our little Prius. We have been driving one for a
number of years now, since 2000 as a matter of fact; but the first one
in Maryland, the first one in Congress. 85,000 miles on it. We were
down in West Virginia going up mountains down there. It has an
instantaneous record of your efficiency, miles per gallon. The worst
mileage we got was 20 miles per gallon.

                              {time}  2350

  Well, that is going up a West Virginia mountain with four people in
the car and luggage, and that one gallon took me 20 miles up the
mountain.
  How long would it take me to pull my car 20 miles up the mountain?
  Of course, I cannot do that without some mechanical advantage. I
could use a winch. We call it a come along and chains and the guardrail
or trees or something, and by and by I could get my car up the
mountain.
  If I got it there in 90 days, that would be 90 hard days work, if you
want to calculate that out how many feet you have to pull it a day.
That gives you some idea of the energy density in these fossil fuels.
So that is the challenge we have.
  The next chart shows us the kind of things we can look to for getting
energy to replace these fossil fuels. Now there are some finite
resources we really have to pay attention to. They will not last
forever, but in this transition we will have to use them as we can.
  The tar sands, and I am going to Canada this summer, when I gave a
talk on a couple of weeks ago, they called and would like me to see
their tar sands exploitation so we will look at that. There is a lot of
oil in tar sand, but most of it is pretty poor quality and it takes a
lot of energy to get it out. It may take almost as much energy to get
it out as you get oil out of the tar sands.
  Then we have the oil shale in this country. The same thing is true
there. Ultimately when Goldman Sachs has oil going to $105 a barrel,
when it gets there it might be feasible to get oil shales. But again, a
big environmental penalty and a lot of energy to get it out.
  Coal. We will leave this chart up and put another chart in front of
this because we want to come back to this one. The chart we put in
front shows coal, and you have heard that we have 250 years of use,
that is true, with no growth at current use rates. Remember that flat
curve we showed before? No growth at current use rates.
  This is perfectly flat. It will last us 250 years with no growth, but
if it just grows 1.1 percent a year it will only last that long. Less
than 150 years. At 2 percent growth it will last less than 100 years.
But what are you going to do with coal? You cannot put it in the trunk
of your car and go down the road. You have to convert coal to a liquid
or a gas so that you can use it. And when you have a 2 percent growth
rate and after conversion you are now down about 50 years of supply.
And you have got to use a lot of energy to make sure that you clean up
the coal.
  We appropriate money from the Congress for clean coal technology, I
support that, because we cannot use coal in the traditional way because
it is enormously polluting.
  We will go back now to our chart we were looking at the options that
we have. The only thing on this table here that comes close to the
energy density of fossil fuels is nuclear. Now, a lot of people have
some big concerns about nuclear. But we have had 104 nuclear power
plants in our country. We have never had a fatal accident. We have
never had any real serious accidents there. Three Mile Island, by the
way, was not a catastrophe. It was very unfortunate. As far as I know
nobody was hurt from that and we learned a lot from that.
  There are three different ways we can get nuclear energy. The way
that will get us home free is fusion, that is what happens in the sun.
And by the way, the sun is the origin of the most of energy that we
have. All of the fossil fuels came from the sun ultimately. The ferns
grew that produced the coal. The little organisms that grew in the
water that settled to the bottom and were later covered over by silt,
and then with the movement of tectonic plates they were buried with
heat and pressure. In time they became oil.

  The odds of getting fusion in time are pretty small. I would like to
use the analogy that me trying to solve my personal economic problems
by winning the lottery is pretty much the same kind of odds that we
face if we want to solve our energy problems in our country with
fusion. That does not keep me from voting for the something less than
$300 million that we appropriate each year to fusion, because if we get
there we are really home free. That is incredible. But that is probably
not going to happen. We certainly would not bank on it. If it happens
that is nice. Like winning the lottery, if it happens that is nice.
  Two other kinds of energy is from nuclear. These are fission. One of
those is whitewater reactor, which is the kind we have in this country.
This uses uranium which is in even shorter supply in the world than
oil. So that will not last forever.
  Ultimately if we are going to get large amounts of energy from
nuclear figures, we are going to have to go to breeder reactors. France
gets about 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear and they have a
lot of breeder reactors. With breeder reactors, you buy a problem of
waste products that you have to store away we believe for maybe a
quarter of a million years. That is a time span we can even think of
and how do you safely store something away for a quarter of a million
years?
  Anything that has that much energy in it ought to be good for
something. If it is so hot, if it has so much energy in it that you
have got to store it away, you cannot even come close to it for a
quarter of a million years, I would think you have not unleashed the
ingenuity of the American people to see what we can do with that
energy. I just think there is some potential there that we have not
tapped.
  Our time for this evening is nearly up. So what I want to do now is
just mention, and we will be coming back again for a full hour and we
will be talking about in detail about these renewable resources down
here, what can we realistically expect from them and what do we need to
do to get them started? Solar and wind and geothermal, tapping that hot
molten iron core of the earth. Ocean energy, the tides and the waves.
Lots of potential from agriculture, soy diesel, bio diesel, ethanol,
methanol, bio mass.
  Waste of energy. Great idea. Rather than filling landfills with it,
burn it and get energy from it. By the way, the heat you got from it
ought to be used for heating people's home. It ought not be wasted in
evaporating water in a big tower outside town.
  Last, we will close with hydrogen from renewable. Hydrogen is not an
energy source. You cannot mine hydrogen. You cannot suck it out of the
air. The only way you get hydrogen is to produce it.
  Right now we are getting hydrogen from natural gas. It would be
better to get it from renewables. We can do that. We can get it from
nuclear. One of the things you might do with a nuclear plant is to
split water to get hydrogen. You put that hydrogen in a fuel cell in
your car. It has at least twice the efficiency of the reciprocating
engine. It

[[Page H2813]]

produces only water when you burn it. You do not have a flame but you
are, in effect, chemically burning it in the fuel cell.
  There are lots of things to look at here. But the real urgency here
is that we have got to buy time by conservation and by efficiency so
that we can use the limited resources of oil that we have, not only to
continue the economies we now have in the world, but to make the
investments we must make in these renewables so that we are going to
continue to be able to live the kinds of qualities lives that we have
been living.
  I am sure that Americans are up to this. What we need is leadership
articulating the problem and articulating the things that Americans
need to do. Americans just need leadership. We are the envy of the
world and we need to be a world leader in this because we use most of
the oil in the world.
  I would note that you can turn to our Web site and there you will
find a discussion of these items of links that will carry you are to
other places. If you would like to order a video or DVD, this is the
telephone number you call at C-SPAN.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2005_record&docid=cr03my05-146