While Platts has done a great job listing all of the major oil company stories of 2007, I am working on a Top 10 list for energy in general. I am about to be offline for a few days, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to gather input on the top energy stories of the year. My short (non-oil company) list of potential candidates would be Nanosolar, the Chevy Volt announcement, the LS9 start-up, the Range Fuels groundbreaking, the BP/D1 jatropha announcement, and the COP/Tyson green diesel announcement. Those are some that spring to my mind.
What else? I am struggling to remember any major developments in wind, tidal, or geothermal power. What about coal? Nuclear? Feel free to debate the list as well. I will check in later on next week and start crafting a post around the list.
A lot of the stories we want to put in “2007” were really “the dog that did not bark” stories.
Lots of announcements, as there have been the last few years, but at the end of it we have no better answer for the bulk of our energy needs than fossil fuel.
Wind made incremental advances in installed capacity, with small increases in the efficiency or cost effectiveness of those devices.
Solar did the same.
Hybrids (and Electrics) did the same.
But no one really changed the game in 2007.
My shy buddy “odograph” is right — lots of announcements, but no dramatic changes.
We human beings like to look back over the year and see the big events — but that really is not the nature of energy, simply because of the shear size of the energy supply business.
Probably the most important energy announcement was Shell’s release of info on their proprietary in-situ process for generating oil from oil shale. Could open a whole new branch of the oil industry, put a cap on the price of oil from conventional fields, and thereby inject some realism into windy dreams. But it turns out that Shell has been working towards this for about a quarter of a century. “Incremental advances” indeed!
If we look for the stories that did not attract attention, surely one of the big ones has to be the continued surprising vitality of the international coal industry. King Coal has officially been dead for a long time. Who would have predicted that, 10 years after Kyoto, coal would once more be where it’s at, supplying more Btus to the world than ever before?
One might also look to the rapid growth in the nuclear industry in China and continuing technological advances in the Thorium cycle in India. Thirty years after the China Syndrome, nuclear power is reaching China in a big way.
That may point to another of the unsung stories bubbling away: in a world where China and others are visibly prospering through use of coal and nuclear power, the clock is really ticking loudly for “alternate” energy sources — time to put up or shut up, since western nations in relative economic decline will not be able to continue subsidizing them indefinitely.
A not-positive but nevertheless noteworthy story is Tesla Motors recent troubles with putting the final touches on its long-awaited car, particularly with the transmission failure and the management shuffling.
TXU announces 11 new coal fired power plants. TXU Coal
Cuts deal with private equity and environmental groups, then retreats on 8 of the 11 plants.
How about this for a timely end of year 2007 story. The FutureGen alliance announces the site for its demonstration plant on Tuesday, Dec. 18:
FutureGen Announcement
For those not familiar with it, FutureGen is a clean coal demonstration plant that will include carbon capture and sequestration. There are 4 finalist sites. Two in Illinois and two in Texas. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate commercial scale CCS technology.
Robert I think you have to include the US Navy funding Bussard Fussion in there:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3139619&C=navwar
The anti doomer
How about this story, NRG announces first application for US nuclear plant in 30 years:
NRG South Texas Nuclear
They propose to use GE’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor technology.
As a utility customer in Texas I am a big cheerleader for them. (BTW the plant is just 60 miles upwind from my house!) I’ll probably go to the NRG hearings.
I have to agree, lots of announcements, no dramatic changes.
One study interested me.
Study analyzes off shore wind in US Northeast
http://www.physorg.com/news89650495.html
The wind resource off the Mid-Atlantic coast could supply the energy needs of nine states from Massachusetts to North Carolina, plus the District of Columbia–with enough left over to support a 50 percent increase in future energy demand–according to a study by researchers at the University of Delaware and Stanford University….
The study marks the first empirical analysis in the United States of a large-scale region’s potential offshore wind-energy supply using a model that links geophysics with wind-electric technology–and that defines where wind turbines at sea may be located in relation to water depth, geology and “exclusion zones” for bird flyways, shipping lanes…chemical disposal sites, military restricted areas, borrow sites where sediments are removed for beach renourishment projects, and “visual space” from major tourist beaches. …
But hey, the NIMBY factor wasn’t totally counted, which will probably kill the prospects.
Another R&D story
Silicon PV – record-breaking combined solar cell efficiency of 42.8 percent from sunlight at standard terrestrial conditions.
http://www.physorg.com/news104501218.html
The highly efficient VHESC solar cell uses a novel lateral optical concentrating system that splits solar light into three different energy bins of high, medium and low, and directs them onto cells of various light sensitive materials to cover the solar spectrum. The system delivers variable concentrations to the different solar cell elements. The concentrator is stationary with a wide acceptance angle optical system that captures large amounts of light and eliminates the need for complicated tracking devices.
In a way I find the Nanosolar story more compelling since they are actually in commercial production now. Still, the prospect of high efficiency PV without using exotic and/or toxic materials gives me hope.
The anonymous David Mathews wrote:
“And Robert Rapier is looking out for his million dollar paycheck, so you know that he is very much in favor of pollution. Robert Rapier loves burning oil.”
Ad hominem attack? Usually means the attacker does not have a decent argument. Tantamount to running up a white flag, Dave.
SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
DECEMBER 10, 2007
OSLO, NORWAY
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.
Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life‚s work, unfairly labeling him The Merchant of Death because of his invention of dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.
Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.
Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.
Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, „We must act.
The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.
We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst though not all of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.
However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the worlds leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler‚s threat: They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.
So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.
As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.
We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
Seven years from now.
In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home.
Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction.
The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.
We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.
Even in Nobel‚s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, we are evaporating our coal mines into the air. After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth‚s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.
But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless — which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.
We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.
Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: “Mutually assured destruction.”
More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a “nuclear winter.” Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world‚s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.
Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent carbon summer.
As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice. Either,‰he notes,would suffice.
But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.
We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.
These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.
No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.
Now comes the threat of climate crisis a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?
Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called Satyagraha or truth force.
In every land, the truth once known has the power to set us free.
Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between me and we, creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.
There is an African proverb that says, If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We need to go far, quickly.
We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step ism.
That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.
This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun‚s energy for pennies or invent an engine that‚s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.
When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, „It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.
In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the Father of the United Nations. He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.
My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.
Just as Hull‚s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, crisis is written with two symbols, the first meaning danger, the second opportunity. By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.
We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.
Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.
This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.
Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.
We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.
And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon — with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.
The world needs an alliance especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they‚ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.
But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters, most of all my own country, that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.
Both countries should stop using the other‚s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.
These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:
The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.
That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.
We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures each a palpable possibility and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.
The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.
The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: „What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?
Or they will ask instead: How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?
We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.
So let us renew it, and say together: We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.
My Top 10:
1. Oil hits $99/barrel. This price shock, combined with the fact that most oil exports come from unstable and hostile regimes who don’t play by free-market rules, motivated western nations to once again seek out alternatives, providing the impetus for half of our other top 10 stories.
2. US Coal Plant cancellations, headlined by TXU cancelling 8 of 11 planned plants. CO2, the primary driver behind the other half of our top 10 stories, has long played in Europe but will only achieve global influence by spreading through the US into the developing world. 2007’s coal plant cancellations marked the tipping point.
3. Chevy Volt. GM has dedicated a full product team and allocated a plant for mass production — the first time in history an electric car has achieved such status.
4. The bloom comes off the biofuel rose. European studies showed oil-palm biodiesel was actually worse for the environment due to tropical rainforest destruction, and US corn ethanol plants lost money because of overbuilding. A general biofuel backlash took root due to higher food prices and other side effects.
5. Next-gen biofuels advance. Due to the above factors, the biofuel spotlight turned to the future. Dozens of startups focused on cellulosic ethanol, gasification and other next-gen processes competed for headlines with “green diesel”, butanol and other biofuel initiatives from the oil majors.
6. Texas surpassed California in wind energy. This signals a shift in wind from high-cost, subsidized eco-darling to cost-effective energy source. As the low-cost provider, wind now thrives in low bureaucracy states such as former oil-king Texas. Meanwhile high-regulation states such as California lag behind.
7. Non-Silicon PV.
8. Return of solar thermal.
9. Nuclear re-emerges.
10. A123Systems mass production.
More detail on 7-10 later.
It’s possible that Texas has surpassed California in wind capacity because wind is a cost effective energy source, but I bet that still depends on the PTC subsidy. When the PTC expires, if Texas still puts up GWs of turbines every year, I’ll be convinced.
In the meantime, I suspect that it has more to do with Texas having 20 times the potential wind capacity than California, according to AWEA. California has already built up 35% of its potential, while Texas has only built up 3% of its potential. I’m not surprised that Texas would find it a lot easier to expand at that level.
On the way to church this morning we saw 6 semi trailers each carrying a single turbine blade headed west out of Houston.
Just about every week I see at least one set of turbines or the power block transported to the windy plains of West Texas. For retail we can pick 100% wind power for just a penny or two more per kWh than the cheapest conventional mix of power. Texas is serious about renewables.
It’s another of the “diffuse” stories, but the large and growing number of serious electricity shortages, particularly in the developing world. Some appear to be related to climate change — droughts that require major hydro cutbacks. Some are clearly due to oil prices/supplies — poor countries that burn heavy diesel in their power plants and can’t afford it at the new world prices. Some are due to bad bets on fuel sources — natural gas generators put in, and the gas supply declining sooner than planned. Closer to home, the story that San Antonio, Texas, started importing coal from South America because they couldn’t get timely deliveries from the Powder River area of Wyoming.
7. First Solar market value hits $20 billion. As the first mass producer of non-silicon thin film PV, FSLR cashed in bigtime in 2007. Their $1.40/W manufacturing cost is a huge competitive advantage, yielding fat profits and an eye-popping 200% growth rate. True to their name, First Solar got out of the gate first, but other non-Si players are still in the race. Companies using CIGS, including the much-hyped but yet-to-deliver Nanosolar, promise to break the $1/W barrier.
8. Solar thermal heats up. For decades the SEGS parabolic trough plant in California’s Mojave desert stood alone as the only large-scale CSP plant on earth, but 2007 saw a rebirth of this technology with the inauguration of the 64MW Nevada Solar One plant and construction of plants in Spain, Australia and elsewhere. California utilities have ordered up to 1750 MW of capacity from dish-Stirling purveyor Stirling Energy Systems and startups such as Ausra are pushing the price/performance barrier with linear fresnel architectures.
9. NRG orders first new US nuclear plant in 30 years (thanks KingofKaty). Never completely dead in some countries, nuclear’s return to the US demonstrates how far this former pariah has resurrected itself in a CO2-wary world.
10. A123Systems mass produces next generation lithium batteries. Shipping in DeWalt’s 2007 line of 36V cordless power tools, these new cells mark the 5th wave of rechargable batteries (lead-acid, NiCad, NiMH, Li-ion and now advanced lithium). Advanced lithium chemistries from A123 and dozens of other vendors offer the possibility of cost-effective plug-in hybrids as well as applications in the electrical grid.
In regards to the comment on Bussard getting follow on funding. He died a couple months ago. I had really given up on fusion, but his work actually appears to have a reasonable change to work. Hopefully with more funding his team will be able to make it work.
What’s the news with Stirling Solar, anyway? Didn’t they get those 1750 MW of contracts with the California utilities back in 2005? It seems they still haven’t filed an Application for Certification yet. What’s their status? I haven’t heard anything about them in 2007.
Sorry to hear about Dr. Bussard, I hope his work continues.
RR has talked about this before, this could be either a 2007 or potentially 2008 story.
Big Oil’s Talent Hunt
From the article:
ConocoPhillips (COP) has grand plans. With demand for oil soaring, the company announced on Dec. 7 that it will boost its exploration and production budget by 8%, to $11 billion, a war chest intended to fund massive projects from Canada to China to the Caspian Sea.
But there’s a potential obstacle to the company’s vision: not enough people to get the work done. Half of Conoco’s employees are eligible for retirement within five years. Unless older workers can be replaced, Conoco’s expansion could be costlier and slower than planned. In an interview with BusinessWeek, CEO James J. Mulva said that the lack of talent is one of the most dangerous threats to his company’s long-term health. “People are a big concern,” he said.
This is not just a big oil story. Lack of workers is hitting all sectors of the energy industry. It seems that college students would rather be lawyers or investment bankers than scientists and engineers.
Clee, I think SES was to put up the first 40 dishes starting this year, but I’m skeptical. They’re small, underfunded and pursuing a dead end technology. It’d be much more cost-effective to simply put 40% PV cells on those dishes and forget the Stirling engines. Solar thermal’s only real advantage over CPV is thermal storage, and Dish-Stirling isn’t amenable to that. So what’s the point?
I mentioned the SES deals because it shows SoCal utilities will sign big contracts. If SES doesn’t deliver, they’ll sign with someone else. Unless the whole thing was really just a scam to get approval for a few big transmission lines, as some claim.
You point about TX having more wind than CA supports my thesis. TX had more wind than CA 25 years ago, as well, so why did CA have all the turbines? It was purely political. Now that wind is cost-effective, the turbines are going to places with the most wind and fewest bureaucratic hurdles.
Of course there are still some subsidies for wind, as with every other energy source. How competitive would coal plants be if they didn’t get free permits to transfer billions of pounds of carbon from the ground to the atmosphere each year? How competitive would oil be if we didn’t spend a few hundred billion a year on Mid-East military adventures? How competitive would nukes be if every plant had to post bond sufficient to cover the worst case disaster scenario?
The PTC credit is less than 2 cents per kWh for only 10 years. Spread over all the kWhs a turbine will generate in its 30+ year life it’s less than a penny per kWh. That’s chump change in the subsidy world, a fraction of what coal plant sequestration would cost (assuming it even worked). More to the point, none of these subsidies are going away anytime soon, so it makes sense to include them in economic analyses instead of engaging in random ‘what-if’ scenarios.
More to the point, none of these subsidies are going away anytime soon
Don’t count on that. What politicians give, politicians can also take away. Look at the history of solar heating for California swimming pools, for example.
Anyway, the biggest subsidies for wind factories comes from guaranteed sales rather than from direct subsidy. Many wind turbine owners get paid for power produced at times when it is not needed by the utility — and often get paid at peak rates too.
The best thing for Big Wind would be to get off subsidies totally. When they can deliver reliable 24/7 power at lower cost than coal, they will get all the business they can handle. And they will deserve it too.
Great topic RR!
The problem is, of course, that it may be too soon to tell which stories were groundbreaking and which were mere blips on the screen. Ten years from now, we may look back and say, oh yeah, when technology X was announced in 2007, little did we know…
I do think Range Fuels has a high likelyhood of becoming a significant technology. What little information is available certainly sounds promising, including the result from EBMUD that the Klepper gasifier was the most efficient.
The other story that caught my eye was the Portable Waste-to-Synfuels Project, financed by DoD. I think this is significant, for the following reasons:
1. Engineers still fall into two categories: those who build weapons and those who build targets. Guess which group gets the funding priority?
2. DoD has more needs than cost effective gasification: the whole supply chain thing comes into pay. Thus, even if the gas costs $10/gal, DoD may consider it feasible. From there, the process will probably get optimized (cheaper to operate). Crude oil is also likely to get more expensive. Eventually, DoD transfers the technology back to the civilian population (as has happened with many other technologies).
3. At DoD, the technology is out of reach from the politicians. Specifically, the farm lobby does not get to muddy the waters. DoD is likely to look at the science and the cost. Wish we could say the same for DoE.
All of these makes this the best opportunity for gasification, since South Africa constructed SASOL. Not that it guarantees good results, mind you. But if gasification can’t fly with this one, it needs to be buried.
The question remains: Is the Chevy Volt a serious proposal, or vaporware?
Key uncertainties remain: For now, Chevrolet is sticking to its announced 2010 production date, despite a staggering number of variables that are still in the air.
Chief among them is batteries. The first of the two lithium-ion batteries Chevy is sourcing arrived for testing on Halloween. The production people insist that the batteries are delivering as promised so far, though no one seems to know much about the weight and costs of the production version. The battery could have dramatic effect on the design of the car since aerodynamics are apparently playing a larger role in battery range than engineers had anticipated. Chevy spokespeople say that the low slope roof will remain, though you can bet those 20-inch wheels will be gone.
For a car that is supposed to debut in 2009 (or is it 2010?), there seems to be a lot of unknowns. Oh, and its your tax dollars at work, of course…
I wish GM all the best with project, and hope they can make it happen. But in recent times the correlation between announcements and real action has been a tad low.
BTW RR,
Can we at least vote Dave Mathews off the island? He adds nothing but insult.
Yes, Dr. Bussards’ work will be carried on. First step is to construct WB-7 and replicate the results achieved with WB-6. Hopefully by the end of April 2008.
If that works, then on to WB-8, and then an actual power generating plant.
Oh, by the way, according to the EIA initial estimate for 2006, US CO2 emissions fell by 1.3% while the economy grew.
Well, let me add a few possibilities from a different perspective…
In no particular order:
Cooper Pairs in Insulators: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/849-1.html
One of the AIP’s top stories of the year, this discovery may well help us reach a better understanding of superconductivity and insulators both. Superconductivity is of course a holy grail in energy research, and while this discovery doesn’t directly lead to a room temp superconductor, it does add to the fundamental knowledge of material in the solid state.
Medvedev slated to take over from Putin
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071217/92858987.html
Essentially Putin’s Russia will continue, and that has direct implication for all the fossil fuel industry in Asia, regarding everything from global warming to export control to defense postures. Putin’s Russia, one of an energy oligarchy, will continue to express those policies likely for a good portion of the 21st century.
Conditions in Iraq improve enough to get the oil industry back online
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=54099 (or any similar articles.)
Opening the possibility that Iraq just might return to a functioning member of OPEC has direct implications on the availability of oil for import around the world.
USAF test flight of transport aircraft C-17 using CTL synthetic fuel
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/24117
This heralds the onset of CTL and likely portrays our (US) future over the next couple of decades.
And now, for my wildcat speculation of the most important news item:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200712120689.html
Southwest Africa will turn out to be a major oil exporting region over the next couple of decades, slowing the decrease in available net exports of oil.
-“InJapan”
FutureGen selected Mattoon, IL for their site.
Biggest news is (a) the return of nuclear power in the US and (b) the new concentrated solar technologies and projects. It’s all about baseload in the end.
Can we at least vote Dave Mathews off the island? He adds nothing but insult.
His posts will never be allowed to stand here. I gave him an awful lot of leeway, and he went well out of his way to warrant this. There are very few rules here, and I have explained clearly what will result in a post being deleted. Criticism is not a problem. Ad hominems and off-topic rants are. Identifying my employer will get a post deleted. And the last time I pointed all of this out, he went and broke all the rules, knowing the post would be deleted so he could run off to other boards and claim censorship.
So, while I can’t prevent him from posting (unless I enable comment moderation), I can delete any sign of him as soon as I see the posts. So, if you all will just ignore him, I will clean up his spewings at the first chance.
Cheers, RR
Just checking in from a local library in the heartland. Thanks to all for the comments. I will save this offline, and start putting a story together. I think a lot of the things that have been posted are really good, and some have spurred some other ideas. If you think of any more, keep it up and I will check back in a couple of days.
Cheers, RR
Optimist, GM is clearly serious about the Volt. They’re in no position to waste hundreds of product engineers on a PR stunt. The timeline was always 2010. Some early reporters wrongly assumed 2010 was the model year (i.e. fall 2009 ship date), but that was never the case.
Will they make 2010? I doubt it. There are too many unique accessories such as electric A/C compressors, power steering, etc. which you can’t just pull out of the GM parts bin. Management is no longer worried about battery technology, though, it seems testing has gone very well. Battery cost, however, remains a big issue.
Articles about Volt aerodynamics, 21 inch wheels, etc. are generally clueless. The concept car body started life as a mock-up to show off futuristic plastics being developed by GM and GE. Typical of the breed, it would have been powered by dilithium crystals or something. Late in the game management decided to announce the E-Flex architecture, and they needed a cool-looking car body so they hijacked this advanced plastics concept car (can’t remember the original name, but it wasn’t Volt).
Anyway, public response was overwhelming, but of course people didn’t say “I want the E-Flex architecture”. They said “I want the Volt”. Would most of these folk buy a 40 mile plug-in version of a Chevy Malibu? Probably. But GM can’t risk it so they’ll build something that at least vaguely resembles the show car. Vaguely being the key word.
More on the FutureGen project and why I think it ought to be in the top 10.
Firstly, it was a PlIMBY project (please in my backyard). Something of a rarity for large energy projects. About a dozen communities applied and 4 finalists were selected. Virtually no local opposition. The DEIS and FEIS were completed very quickly.
The state of Texas passed legislation not only allowing CO2 injection, but transferring ownership and liability to the state. Illinois fiddled and in the end got the project in spite of their own politicians. If Sen. Obama wins the nomination, it should make for some interesting energy policy debates next year.
Next, FutureGen is just one of several similar projects around the world. FutureGen joins GreenGen in China and Coal21 in Australia as large carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)demonstration projects. The FutureGen Alliance is an international partnership.
Yes, it is expensive ($6,000-$6,500 / kW) but as IGCC’s go, relatively small. Some have called it a Gov’t boondoggle. Perhaps, but if we are serious about reducing C02, proving CCS works gives us a cost competitive alternative.
Even if you don’t like IGCC/CCS – it is still cheaper than PV solar, and other alternatives.
More pessimism, I mean realism about Chevy Volt.
Doggy,
I wouldn’t doubt for a second that GM is serious about this. However, recent experience would suggest that management being serious and actual results are two very separate concepts, and the correlation between the two is of concern.
And, as you point out, there are many unique issues that would need to be addressed. In that regard 2010 just seem very soon…
King, I grew up 10 miles from Mattoon. Never expected to see them featured in energy web site headlines!
Optimist, my mistake. I thought you did doubt GM was serious, since you asked “is the Chevy Volt a serious proposal”? Anyway, at GM failure is always an option so only time will reveal the Volt’s fate. If you get your info from web sites which claim the battery is yet to be invented, though, you’ll find yourself perpeturally behind the curve. Home Depot and other fine retailers have sold DeWalt 36V cordless tools featuring these batteries since spring. Someone will build this car even if GM falls on their face.
Kingof katy wrote of FutureGen:
Yes, it is expensive ($6,000-$6,500 / kW) but as IGCC’s go, relatively small.
Something else to keep in mind — it takes equipment (i.e. invested energy) to separate CO2 from the flue gas and inject it somewhere. It also takes operating cost energy to perform the separation & injection. Bottom line — it will require a lot more fuel input to get the same amount of deliverable life-cycle electric output from a FutureGen type plant than from a regular power plant.
How much additional fuel energy input? The point of ventures like FutureGen is to get real world data on that. Potentially, instead of one strip mine feeding a power plant with a certain output, it may require two strip mines to feed a FutureGen plant.
Personally, I am glad to see any large scale trial of new technology. We need real engineering data. But people who are in love with “Carbon Capture & Storage” should recognize that widespread adoption of the technology will undoubtedly accelerate the depletion of finite fossil fuels.
That acceleration of fossil fuel depletion is a more urgent problem for the human race than anthropogenic global warming (even if AGW turns out to be real).
Agreed, some energy is consumed in removing the CO2 and compressing it. However, you are forgetting a couple of points. Coal is about $1 per million BTUs, capital costs drive the power price, not fuel use. Besides, there are more carbon atoms below Illinois than there are under Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar combined. Using 10-15% more might make a difference in a couple of hundred years. By then we should have deployed some other energy systems, could be fusion, PV solar, or other alternatives.
Something else that doesn’t get mentioned much is removing mecury and other heavy metals. IGCC locks it up as vitreous slag, which can easily be landfilled or disposed of permanently.
It may turn out to be too expensive, but I think it is worth getting real data on. The most critical opponents of FutureGen seem to have little problem subsidizing hybrid vehicles, biofuels, solar and other alternatives.
Comparing the Chevy Volt to the Vega is unfair. I remember the first Honda RS Civic with that powerhouse 50 hp engine and those ugly fender mounted rear view mirrors. Nobody would say Honda and Toyota can’t produce a good car because their original small cars weren’t that great either.
Comparing the Chevy Volt to the Vega is unfair.
Perhaps. I think the point was that the Vega, like the Volt, was supposed to be the car to get GM ahead of the competition. We’ll see if GM can follow through this time. Personally, I’m concenred that their management seems to be all bean counters and no engineers.
That acceleration of fossil fuel depletion is a more urgent problem for the human race than anthropogenic global warming (even if AGW turns out to be real).
Why would you say that? As King points out, there is a lot of coal that can still be mined. Not to mention Canadian tar sand, oil shale, etc.
FutureGen seems to be aimed at the “Hydrogen Economy”. IMHO that ain’t gonna happen. If liquid hydrocarbons are ever replaced as the fuel of choice, it should be with a superior product, that is preferably cheaper, but at least not more expensive.
Home Depot and other fine retailers have sold DeWalt 36V cordless tools featuring these batteries since spring.
Can’t be that simple, could it? As mentioned: The production people insist that the batteries are delivering as promised so far, though no one seems to know much about the weight and costs of the production version. That would seem to contradict the “pick ’em up at Home Depot” point of view.
Kingofkaty wrote re Carbon Capture & Storage accelerating fossil fuel depletion:
there are more carbon atoms below Illinois than there are under Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar combined. Using 10-15% more might make a difference in a couple of hundred years.
Statement is accurate but incomplete. Remember that 2 out of 3 human beings on the planet today are not using much energy — yet. If CCS takes off in a big way, it will increase what is already an accelerating global demand for coal. Since the Kyoto base year of 1990, global demand for coal has increased by an amazing 1/3 (33% increase!) — and China & India are still barely getting into their stride. This will ultimately affect US coal production (and life of US coal reserves), even without CCS.
It may turn out to be too expensive, but I think it is worth getting real data on.
Most definitely. Commercial scale data is essential, and there is always the possibility of a serendipitous discovery.
The most critical opponents of FutureGen seem to have little problem subsidizing hybrid vehicles, biofuels, solar and other alternatives.
True, and sad. Subsidies are the crack cocaine of renewables — brief good feeling, leading to total calamity.
My favorite energy story for 2008 would be — Congress recognizes they cannot pick winners, and instead sets up a multi-billion dollar X-Prize competition for the first three alternate energy sources to supply reliable commercial-scale power at costs competitive with fossils.
“That acceleration of fossil fuel depletion is a more urgent problem for the human race than anthropogenic global warming (even if AGW turns out to be real)”.
“Why would you say that? As King points out, there is a lot of coal that can still be mined. Not to mention Canadian tar sand, oil shale, etc.”
I would say that because it is true. Even global warming alarmists like NASA’s Hansen recognize that the time scale for alleged AGW effects is centuries. On the other hand, most studies on oil supply put the timescale until problems in the range of decades.
Now hitting a problem is not necessarily the same thing as hitting a brick wall. There are many lower quality carbon resources which could be used, and the potential for nuclear power is huge. But it will be a different world.
One item that many people forget is the impact of Energy Returned On Energy Invested, or energy amplification.
To simplify greatly, suppose we have a supply of big oilfields giving an energy amplification of 100. If we produce 100 bbls, 99 of those barrels are available for things like food, transportation, etc. Only 1 bbl has to be plowed back into developing the next oil field.
But when we switch to (say) tar sands, with an energy amplification of 2 — now we would need to produce almost 200 bbl to have the same net 99 bbl.
As far as I can see, most projections of future energy demand ignore the impacts of declining energy amplification as we switch away from highly productive conventional oil fields. I.e. they seriously underestimate the growth in demand.
As far as I can see, most projections of future energy demand ignore the impacts of declining energy amplification as we switch away from highly productive conventional oil fields. I.e. they seriously underestimate the growth in demand.
As far as I can see the doomers always ignore the free market principle: if energy becomes that scarce, it will also become expensive. Don’t think $100/bbl, think five times that. At that point, the doomers seriously overestimate growth in demand.
People respond to incentives, and $500/bbl is a pretty strong incentive to conserve, move closer to the office (or find a job closer to home), etc.
$500/bbl is also a powerful incentive to industry: more energy efficient appliances, cars, planes, everything.
The incentives are also there for inventors and venture capitalists: you know, workable alternatives, as opposed to the food->fuel and other bird-brained schemes that dominate the present.
Assuming your numbers are accurate, the change from EROEI does not change from 100 to 2 over night. It gradually happens, driving up energy prices, and stimulating all of the activities I described above.
The big caveat is what politicians would do. These pigs-at-the-trough are the main threat to a gradual (not necessarily painless) move to a more sustainable future.
David Mathews shows himself to be the kind of simple minded advocate who only makes the problem worse.
He apparently believes that oil companies can get any price they want. He believes that traders, who spend billions of dollars per day buying crude oil, are an unsophisticated lot who don’t bother to check on present and future global supply and demand scenarios to help their bargaining positions, and are as a consequence easily fooled by Big Oil.
He must also believe that when oil companies drill a well, dollar bills come gushing out of the borehole. He doesn’t connect the dots that oil companies are drilling wells because guys like him are buying and using oil.
Global warming is a serious problem. So is the supply of fossil fuels (whether you call it Peak Oil or not), at least until the day we have viable alternatives. To sit back from a position of ignorance and blame all the world’s evils on the oil industry, to pretend that they are blocking alternatives, is not really helping the situation, is it? Would it be useful on balance to the world’s population if the oil companies just wound things up and stopped producing oil next Tuesday, thereby reducing fossil fuel pollution?
I suggest that Mr. Mathews go learn something about the oil industry before spouting any more nonsense on this blog.
“For example, the oil industry is responsible for all of the pollution that it generates that fills the air in cities such as Houston and Los Angeles. etc etc etc”
So you and I and thousands of others have gasoline pumped into our SUV’s at gunpoint? Airlines are forced to buy jet fuel? Have you ever heard of demand? You don’t get it. Much easier to fantasize that Big Oil has constructed an elaborate system that has fooled almost everyone but yourself.
Whatever, Mr. Mathews. You want to blame everything on the industry. Go for it. Just do it somewhere else.
Mr. Mathews,
I suggest valium and a good read on basic economics. Good night.
Optimist wrote:
As far as I can see the doomers always ignore the free market principle: if energy becomes that scarce, it will also become expensive.
The great thing about the debate between cornucopians and the finite resource crowd is that we are all likely to live long enough to see the issue resolved, one way or another.
There are complex links between energy, food, transportation, government, justice, medicine, you name it. If energy becomes more expensive, will the effects be nothing more than people living closer to their work?
Not so long ago, if someone stole a sheep, he got a quick trial and then was hung. Cost to taxpayers — very little.
Today, if someone rapes & murders a child, he will get a long expensive trial and then will be put in jail for a long time. Cost to taxpayers — several million dollars.
Now, are we better people today, or are we simply richer because of cheap available energy? My guess is that when energy becomes expensive again (for the reasons you outline), there will be impacts on society that we can hardly even begin to imagine — like changes to the justice system and the medical system. Impacts that frankly I would rather we never have to find out about.
That is why it is really important for us to start using the known technology of nuclear energy on a much larger scale and to continue investing in research into alternate energy sources which can truly be cheaper & better than fossils. Because the alternative is too risky to contemplate.
But we have drifted off the topic of this thread. Maybe we can take this up again on another occasion.
I still say all you guys have missed the boat.
The BIG STORY of 2007?
PEAK DEMAND!!!!!!!
When BP stats come out, they will probably show world fossil oil consumption in 2007 was no greater than 2006.
And 2006 was up 0.7 percent from 2005.
And 2005 was up 1.4 percent from 2004
And 2004 was up 3.1 percent from 2003.
Way, way before we really “need it,’ innovation and substitution are cutting into fossil oil consumption.
Never bet against innovators in a well-capitalized free market economy.
Moreover, the best is yet to come: Innovation, conservation, and fuel-switching take years to come online. Then they keep piling on.
All repeat: PEAK DEMAND WAS THE BIG STORY OF 2007.
Best wishes on holidays to all my RR friends….
I think a big story of 2007 (and apologies if someone already made this point) is the response of the global economy to the large increase in oil prices. Most people would have probably assumed that $90 oil would have caused mayhem in the global economy a year or two ago. Yet the effect has been relatively muted. I think this says a lot about how effectively individuals, businesses (and hats off to alternative energy firms), and governments have responded to increasing oil prices over the long term. Oil now has a much smaller (I believe around 50%) impact per GDP than it did in the 1970’s in most of the big western economies, including the US.
Wow, we have an Al Gore “Bevets”….. that’s a new one.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bevets
Benny “Peak Demand” Cole wrote:
All repeat: PEAK DEMAND WAS THE BIG STORY OF 2007.
Thanks for pointing that nugget out. Interesting! But incomplete.
If you take a look at BP’s Annual Review (2007 version) for all fossils, 2006 vs. 2005, you see:
Oil +0.7%
Gas +2.5%
Coal +4.5%
In absolute terms, the increase in coal demand (2006 vs 2005) was about one & a half times the combined increase in oil & gas combined.
Renewable energy is contributing next to nothing — sorry. What does seem to be happening is that coal is re-emerging as the preferred fuel for non-transportation energy demand. Which would make sense, because a delivered coal Btu is cheaper than a delivered oil Btu.
In the longer run, the problem is that coal can not replace oil as a transportation fuel.
In the longer run, the problem is that coal can not replace oil as a transportation fuel.
With coal in solid form, of course. We already have the technology for coal liquefaction to provide a useful transportation fuel — but that would push up demand for coal dramatically, and bring up the issue of “Peak Coal”.
it will require a lot more fuel input to get the same amount of deliverable life-cycle electric output from a FutureGen type plant than from a regular power plant.
Not necessarily. FutureGen runs a combined cycle instead of the single cycle of existing coal plants. Combined cycle plants can achieve 50-60% thermal efficiency vs. the 33% typical of single cycle, so it’s quite possible FutureGen will deliver more kWh/ton of coal than existing plants.
In the longer run, the problem is that coal can not replace oil as a transportation fuel.
Besides liquefaction, cars can be converted to run directly on coal. This happened in WW2 Europe, though a lot more cars ran on wood. EPA approval might be problematic 🙂
In some parts of the US the Chevy Volt will mostly run on coal.
“Not necessarily. FutureGen runs a combined cycle instead of the single cycle of existing coal plants. Combined cycle plants can achieve 50-60% thermal efficiency vs. the 33% typical of single cycle, so it’s quite possible FutureGen will deliver more kWh/ton of coal than existing plants.”
True. But it would also be true to say that a new build Carbon Capture & Storage coal-fired power plant of a given deliverable output might need twice as much fuel as a similar non-CCS new-build plant.
Anyway we cut it, CCS takes energy. That is not an argument against CCS, but it is a fact. And it is a fact that needs to be addressed by proponents of CCS. All the fuel being used for CCS is fuel that is not being used to help feed & clothe human beings. Is CCS the best use of that limited supply of fuel?
All repeat: PEAK DEMAND WAS THE BIG STORY OF 2007.
Benny,
Too bad the EIA sees things differently:
Word Oil Demand, bbl/d
2003: 79.3
2004: 82.4 (+3.9%)
2005: 83.6 (+1.5%)
2006: 84.4 (+1.0%)
2007: 85.8 (+1.7%)
WHOOPS! So much for Peak Demand. Better luck with 2008.
Kinuachdrach said: Now, are we better people today, or are we simply richer because of cheap available energy? My guess is that when energy becomes expensive again (for the reasons you outline), there will be impacts on society that we can hardly even begin to imagine — like changes to the justice system and the medical system. Impacts that frankly I would rather we never have to find out about.
armchair261 said: Most people would have probably assumed that $90 oil would have caused mayhem in the global economy a year or two ago. Yet the effect has been relatively muted.
And there you have it. Oil prices went from $15-20/bbl in 1999-2000 to the current $85-95/bbl without bringing western civilization to a screetching halt.
My take: the pessimists vastly overestimate the benefits of cheap energy.
Think of expensive energy as the opportunity for sustainable living to make it into the mainstream.
“Think of expensive energy as the opportunity for sustainable living to make it into the mainstream.”
Or, alternatively, think of cheap energy as a way to suppress alternatives.
Our friend Mr. Mathews may think the Big Oil conspiracy has squelched alternative energy development for all these years, but I suspect $3 oil until the 1970’s and $20 oil until the late 1990’s had a to more to do with it.
2007: 85.8 (+1.7%)
Impressive how the EIA was able to measure 2007 consumption so accurately 11 months ago!
In their most recent report, they lowered their 2007 growth estimate to 1.1%. Still an increase, though.
Note that OECD dropped 0.7% in 2006 and seems set to repeat in 2007. It’s not so much peak demand as a shift from OECD to the developing world.
Potential improvement on PV front
Transparent electrodes created from atom-thick carbon sheets could make solar cells and LCDs without depleting precious mineral resources, say researchers in Germany.
Solar cells, LCDs, and some other devices, must have transparent electrodes in parts of their designs to let light in or out. These electrodes are usually made from indium tin oxide (ITO) but experts calculate that there is only 10 years’ worth of indium left on the planet, with LCD panels consuming the majority of existing stocks.
“There is not enough indium on earth for the future development of devices using it,” says Linjie Zhi of the Max Plank Institute for Polymer Research in Mainz, Germany. “It is also not very stable, so you have to be careful during the fabrication process.”
Although experimental alternatives to ITO exist, these are also unstable and of unproven efficiency. Zhi and colleagues Xuan Wang and Klaus Müllen believe they have a cheaper, more stable alternative.
They are testing solar cells with transparent electrodes made from graphene – flat sheets of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal structure. When rolled up, this material makes carbon nanotubes.
The solar panels they created were dye-sensitised solar cells, first invented in 1991 and predicted by some to be the most likely successor to silicon-based solar cells.
Battery tech may have just taken a big step forward
Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.
The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.
I’m still concerned about the lithium supply, though.
optimist said:
And there you have it. Oil prices went from $15-20/bbl in 1999-2000 to the current $85-95/bbl without bringing western civilization to a screetching halt.
Ummm. Ever heard of inflation? How about declining US dollar exchange rates?
In inflation-adjusted terms,the dollar price of oil today is about the same as it was in 1982 — a quarter of a century ago. In terms of other currencies like sterling or yen, oil is cheaper today (inflation adjusted) than it was back in the early 1980s.
So, yes, western civilization has not come to a screeching halt. Why would it have?
In inflation-adjusted terms,the dollar price of oil today is about the same as it was in 1982 — a quarter of a century ago.
Not so fast. Many blame those oil prices in the late 70s and early 80s for the extended recession that was going on at the time. So, this time we have the same oil prices, without the recession (so far). If/when we do hit the recession, it will have more to do with subprime and Alan (I didn’t do it, I swear) Greenspan than oil prices.
I still contend that there is significance in oil prices jumping fivefold in seven years without creating havoc. Can this trend be extended? We will hopefully find out soon enough.
“And what does ConocoPhillips think about Global Warming? Oil corporations must have an opinion.”
ConocoPhillips Joins World Bank’s Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases from Burning of Natural Gas
WASHINGTON, DC, December 12, 2007 — The World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction partnership (GGFR) today welcomed ConocoPhillips’ decision to join and support the efforts of other oil producing countries and companies in minimizing the wasteful practice of burning natural gas –also known as gas flaring- and reducing greenhouse gases to mitigate the impact of climate change.
“We welcome ConocoPhillips into the GGFR partnership and look forward to working with them to reduce gas flaring. We hope that other major private oil producers, countries, and national oil companies worldwide will join these efforts as well,” said Somit Varma, director of the World Bank and IFC’s Oil, Gas, Mining and Chemicals department. “Gas flaring harms the environment and wastes a cleaner source of energy that could generate much needed electricity in poor countries.”
By joining GGFR, ConocoPhillips will be part of a select group of 10 major international oil companies and other important national oil companies from around the world that have expressed their commitment to gas flaring reduction and are making efforts to minimize its practice by finding alternative uses for the gas associated with oil production, which is often burnt off, particularly in developing countries that lack sufficient infrastructure, have weak or non existent domestic gas markets, or have inadequate regulations that constrain the utilization of associated gas.
“ConocoPhillips is committed to minimizing the environmental impact and improving the energy and material efficiency of our operations,” observed Jim Mulva, chairman and chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips. “We are confident that the GGFR partnership will lead to major progress in reducing gas flaring around the world and we are very pleased to join the effort.”
The World Bank’s GGFR estimates that at least 150 billion cubic meters (or 5.3 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas are being flared and vented annually. That is equivalent to 25 per cent of the United States’ gas consumption or 30 per cent of the European Union’s gas consumption per year. It is also estimated that global gas flaring releases about 400 million tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. This is almost the same as the potential annual emission reductions from projects currently submitted under the Kyoto mechanisms.
Last December, during a Global Forum on Flaring Reduction and Gas Utilization organized by GGFR in Paris, the World Bank called on oil producing countries and companies to step up efforts in reducing the burning of natural gas as a way of mitigating the impact of climate change and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Gas Flaring Reduction is a public-private partnership of governments, state-owned companies and major international oil companies committed to reducing flaring and venting worldwide. GGFR facilitates and supports national efforts to use the associated gas that comes with oil production and thus reduce flaring, by focusing on four key areas: commercialization of associated gas; regulations for associated gas; implementation of a global flaring and venting reduction standard; capacity building to obtain carbon credits for flaring and venting reduction projects. The top 20 major flaring countries in the world include: Russia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Angola, Venezuela, Qatar, Algeria, the United States, Kuwait, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Mexico, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Congo, the United Kingdom, and Gabon.
ConocoPhillips Supports Mandatory National Framework to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Company joins business-environmental USCAP group
(CSRwire) HOUSTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–April 11, 2007–ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) today announced its support for a mandatory national framework to address greenhouse gas emissions and has joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a business-environmental leadership group dedicated to the quick enactment of strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
“We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate,” said Jim Mulva, chairman and chief executive officer. “While we believe no one entity can alone address the environmental, economic and technological issues inherent in any solution, ConocoPhillips will show leadership in finding pragmatic and sustainable solutions.
“In addition to taking actions in our own businesses, we believe it is important that business should step forward to help devise practical, equitable and cost-effective approaches to address the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at both a national and international level. To that end, we have joined USCAP in support of the development of a mandatory national regulatory framework to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, we believe that a mandatory national framework that links to international programs is most likely to achieve meaningful impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.”
Mulva continued, “Any such framework should be transparent, clearly communicate the cost of carbon to consumers, be structured to avoid increasing the volatility of energy prices, and encourage energy efficiency. It also should be paced to match the speed at which technology can be developed and deployed, in order to avoid undue impact on the economy including any impact on the number and location of jobs. The most likely and prudent approach will result in a slow, stop, reverse pattern.”
ConocoPhillips has begun addressing the environmental, technological and economic impact of greenhouse gases and other emissions in its own operations. For example, the company is building the potential long-term cost of carbon into its capital spending plans for each of its major projects around the world and improving energy efficiency in its facilities, including a 10 percent improvement in energy efficiency at its U.S. refineries by 2012. In addition, the company is developing internal targets for greenhouse gas emissions from its operations.
“Meeting the twin challenges of taking action on climate change and providing adequate and reliable supplies of energy will require technical innovation, resource commitments and responsible stewardship by energy producers and consumers alike,” said Mulva. “ConocoPhillips intends to meet these challenges.”
Any more questions, dumbass?
I still contend that there is significance in oil prices jumping fivefold in seven years without creating havoc.
But that is not really what happened.
Yes, there were some short-term low nominal oil prices in the late 1990s. But it is over-stating the case to say that the price of oil jumped fivefold.
Remember also that oil provides only about 36% of global energy. Almost 2/3 of energy for the global economy was being provided by other fuel sources with different price trends.
You could be right that the world will easily shake off the impacts of possible future higher energy prices. On the other hand, you could be terribly wrong. Time will tell.
But the fact that inflation-adjusted oil prices today are about where they were 25 years ago tells us that we have not seen the effects of a genuine sustained substantial increase in oil prices — at least, not since the steep price rises of the 1970s, and most people would accept that those price increases triggered some fairly major global changes.
Wow, 62 posts. I’m not going to try to read them all, but glancing back I see some recent discussion on the significance of recent oil/gasoline prices.
I like the graph here.
It looks like a real change, though I’m not going to pretend I know where it is going next.
Hello Odograph,
That is an excellent graph. Since the graph covers approximately fifty years, I’m going to guess that within the next fifty years people won’t be able to buy gasoline, at all at any price.
Wow, Odograph, according to that figure gas prices have to double to get us back to 1982 levels. Interesting.
Kinuachdrach,
As Benny “Peak Demand” Cole loves to point out, those high oil prices in the late 70s-early 80s also lead to a substantial drop in demand. Could happen again.
The drop in demand, in turn, contributed to the low prices of the late 90s (the other factor being the Asian Tigers going *poof*). Could happen again.
The low prices of the late 90s and growth in China lead to today’s high prices. Happens everytime!
Will we ever see a period of sustained price increases? Stay tuned…
“If ConocoPhillips were to take the Global Warming problem seriously it would immediately cease its oil and natural gas operations altogether.”
And you would immediately cease driving; and buying food from any store that uses fossil fuels to deliver inventory to its shelves; and buying any food grown by farmers who use fossil fuels; and buying any clothes transported to your local store courtesy of trucks, trains, airplanes, or freighters; and stop using any medicines which energy made possible to develop and deliver to the market. But presumably, from your comments, you’ve already taken these steps, or we’d have to conclude that you’re unprincipled.
If all the oil companies took your advice and stopped producing oil tomorrow, how many people would freeze to death this winter in northern climates due to your stupidity? How many poor people in developing nations would lose their jobs? How many people would starve because there was no machinery left to grow and transport food or catch fish? How many silly people would be able to post nonsense from their PC’s at home?
Hello Armchair,
> “If all the oil companies took your advice and stopped producing oil tomorrow, how many people would freeze to death this winter in northern climates due to your stupidity? How many poor people in developing nations would lose their jobs? How many people would starve because there was no machinery left to grow and transport food or catch fish? How many silly people would be able to post nonsense from their PC’s at home?”
These are all good questions. You do know that the fossil fuel era will come to an end?
We are going to lose all of these things eventually. Air conditioners, heaters, automobiles, grocery stores, computer and the Internet … humankind will lose all of these things.
Can Humankind survive without oil?
If humankind cannot survive without oil, our species will go extinct just as the dinosaurs and trilobites went extinct.
So, can humankind survive without oil?
doggydogworld, I just came across an article that supports your idea that wind is a cost-effective energy source.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50898
Figure 1 shows that the average price of wind power without the PTC subsidy is within the range of operating costs of natural gas combustion turbine. Looks like 2005 was the best year for wind vs NG and wind vs wholesale price of electricity. Since then, it appears demand for wind has driven up construction prices. I’m still curious to see when the PTC expires again, if wind farm construction in the US will grind to a near halt like it did the previous times it expired in 1999, 2002 and 2004.
Sure, fossil fuels will go away some day, or play a much smaller role, or ways will be found to almost eliminate fossil fuel pollution. Something else, or more likely a combination of many things, will replace fossil fuels. Your point?
Meanwhile, there are a lot of smart people all over the world investing billions to make alternative energy sources work. But we’re not there yet. Wishing doesn’t make it happen. Work does. Until then we have a critical need for fossil fuels.
Your assumption is that this therefore means that all oil companies are evil and that our dependence on fossil fuels is the result of some kind of huge complex conspiracy, put in place, we must assume, sometime back in the late 19th century.
Put yourself in the place of an oil company CEO in, say, 1950. The world runs on your product. No one knows anything about global warming or solar energy. Oil is so cheap and plentiful that no one is looking for alternatives. This is the system we’ve inherited. Only now, people (yes, including the oil companies) are taking it seriously and starting to do something about it. You want it done tomorrow.
I am sorry to be the one to tell you there is no conspiracy, and that it can’t be done by tomorrow.
I think the interesting thing is that this might be a fundamental change to that graph, rather than (as in the 70s/80s) a response to conflict with the Arab oil states.
The Arab Oil Embargo was definitely a weird and unique historical event.
But of course we do have some conflict in this equation. We may not be properly judging how that conflict plays into price.
armchair261 … a lot of smart people have discovered many forms of “efficiency” that we leave on the table.
You’ve drawn a false choice between status quo, starvation, and future invention.
(Speaking of PCs, my new Asus Eee PC drew only 0.82 kWh in the first week of ownership.)
This morning I read about the revolt of the third world against U.S. leadership on GHG at Bali. That is a real energy turning point.
odograph,
No I don’t present those as the only choices. Clearly it’s an evolving situation, and there are a number of solutions at work already such as solar, wind, etc. Alternatives are developing, but we can’t just switch over to them tomorrow. I do not believe, as you seem to imply, that there is some large conspiracy pushing these alternatives away. If there are good robust alternatives, the market will embrace them. The investors backing them will get rich. if they are left on the table, then it’s almost certainly because there is some compelling commercial reason.
I hope to see some of these alternatives become successful. It would be great if the world could kick its fossil fuel habit.
U.S. leadership on GHG
LOL!
Talk about a contradiction in terms…
Turning point? More like long overdue adjustment.
Actually, Armchair, I asked about efficiency, and why we think we can leave it on the table.
Kinu-
Yes, you are right about the coal. But I contend the top energy story of 2007 is the decline in oil demand.
How will a commodity continue to rise in price, if demand falls every year (which I contend it will)?
It is an overlooked story.
And, I think oil demand contiues to fall for a long time. But, it started to fall this year, marking a historic change.
Give biofuels (largely jatropha) a decade or so. Then we will see. Too soon to tell. I see million-hectare plantations are popping up everywhere.
The big news: There ain’t no energy shortage or crisis. We will not be digging holes in our backyards to poop in. Life will go on, except maybe better, possibly a lot better.
I wish I could live for several hundred years (in a 30-year-old body). What a fascinating time.
larryd-
holy moly what a story about nanowires and ion batteries.
I cannot wait for the day I can buy a PHEV and stick my middle finger in the air towards the Middle East.
True, they won’t see it, but they will feel it, when I and many other millions stop buying gasoline.
Hello David Mathews,
Golly.
Can you share some of what you’re smoking with the rest of us?
Thanks! 🙂
odograph…
Not sure what you mean here.
Do you mean there are efficient and competitive technologies that are being left unused for some reason?
Or that we should be prepared to spend more for more expensive and less efficient technologies?
If the former, I’d say, let’s hear about them!
If the latter, I’d say, true to a point… but… when my doctor friend is spending $18K for a roof mounted solar panel that will take 10 years to pay for itself (his figures), well…. I don’t see a lot of people who are in a position to do that kind of thing. If they are only a little more expensive and readily available, then I think a lot of people would pay a premium for alternative energy sources.
Either way, I don’t see these things having a significant impact for quite some time, barring an unforeseen breakthrough.
Mr. Mathews,
I suggest you share some practical suggestions with us, rather than sophomore level philosophy.
You might want to go over to Oilwatchdog.org. I think you’ll be much happier there.
Thanks for stopping by though!
To contrast to your friends solar installation, most people don’t buy a simple, efficient, refrigerator.
My huge sears kenmore only cost $600 but will pay for itself in 5 years (3 down).
Why doesn’t everyone do that? Priorities. It is more fashionable to have a less efficient (and less reliable!) Sub-Zero.
The same thing happens with cars. People publicly groan that a Prius costs more than a Corolla … and then they go buy a Tahoe.
It doesn’t make sense at all, from the rational standpoint of energy policy. You have to step back and look at it as human psychology.
Most people are doing everything they can to demonstrate conspicuous consumption, explicitly avoiding efficiency, and hoping “alternative fuels” will save them.
… and that’s the behavior our “alt” centered energy policy is designed to support.
odograph…
OK I see, and I agree with you 100%. If everyone could do just one or two of the things you mentioned, it would help out a lot. Like you, I just don’t understand why more people don’t do this. We have this culture of excessive consumption (why does anyone need a Hummer or 5 gallon soft drinks???). It would be a good theme for some of the presidential candidates to pick up…. but I guess it doesn’t play well. I can just hear the advisors….”How do you make a soundbite out of flourescent light bulbs? Better to bash {opposing candidate name here}.”
My huge sears kenmore only cost $600 but will pay for itself in 5 years (3 down).
No. Your refrigerator cost energy to make, and it costs energy to run, and it will cost yet more energy to dispose of at the end of its life cycle. Your refrigerator is USING energy, not saving energy.
It may be using less energy than getting blocks of ice from an old-fashioned ice house, but it is still using energy.
Your refrigerator will NEVER pay for itself. It may cost you less than some alternative, but it will most definitely cost you. That is why so many people in Bangladesh don’t have a Kenmore — they can’t afford one (money & energy).
Kinuachdrach you’ve done two things. First you’ve declared new goalposts, and then you’ve set out distorted logic for your new goalposts.
I said my fridge will pay for itself. That is in the sense that my yearly electricity bill will be reduced sufficiently to pay for the machine. I think we all get that.
In the sense that this might be “bad” I’ll first note that my electric company and my state paid me a small sweetener ($40) to make the switch. They have a bounty program to get old refrigerators off the grid.
Why would they do that?
“This paper discusses optimal lifetimes of mid-sized refrigerator models in the US, using a life cycle optimization model based on dynamic programming. Model runs were conducted to find optimal lifetimes that minimize energy, global warming potential (GWP), and cost objectives over a time horizon between 1985 and 2020. The baseline results show that depending on model years, optimal lifetimes range 2–7 years for the energy objective, and 2–11 years for the GWP objective. On the other hand, an 18-year of lifetime minimizes the economic cost incurred during the time horizon. Model runs with a time horizon between 2004 and 2020 show that current owners should replace refrigerators that consume more than 1000 kWh/year of electricity (typical mid-sized 1994 models and older) as an efficient strategy from both cost and energy perspectives.”
From Optimal household refrigerator replacement policy for life cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost
… and I don’t even know where you are going with the Bangladesh thing, unless you think you can convince citizens of affluent countries to live without refrigerators entirely.
Actually it is chic and fashionable to be green, at least those green “solutions” which are too expensive for the “common folk”. Fashion and chic are about status, after all.
Toshiba had developed a micro sized Nuclear reactor
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.
The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.
Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.
Right off the bat, I see disposal issues, plus this represents a new, heavy, demand for lithium, which is also needed by the battery industry.
Currently genuine “greens” are rare, and likely to be considered “environmental whackos” by the mainstream. On the other hand, yes, it is trendy to mention your compact fluorescents as you climb into your SUV.
On what’s affordable, it’s important to look at the numbers. The average new car sold in America goes for $27-28K. That’s MORE than what a Prius costs. It’s not that people can’t afford them, it’s that they choose differently.
On that, I found this blast from the past:
“The findings were surprising. New refrigerators, which had consumed 400 kilowatt-hours a year on average in 1959, were consuming 800 kilowatt-hours a year. To gain extra storage space, manufacturers removed insulation and gunned the refrigeration motor.“
– more here
Choosing differently indeed …
Kinuachdrach you’ve done two things. First you’ve declared new goalposts, and then you’ve set out distorted logic for your new goalposts.
Seems like you have misunderstood, odograph. You declared that your Kenmore would “pay for itself” — a statement which on its face is ridiculous. Now, I understand that you are using a common shorthand — like the ditzy blonde returning from a day at the mall boasting about how much money she “saved” at the sales. Her credit card company knows that in reality she spent money. And so do you.
This is one of my hot buttons because I have had to listen to too many trendy greenies blustering over their white wine & brie about the importance of conservation.
They talk as if they were the first people in the history of the universe to discover the value of using less resources to accomplish a given objective — something that even the ditzy blonde knows full well. Those pseudo-greenies infatuation with their own new-found insight shows shocking ignorance & disrespect towards the long line of unsung heros who have been working hard to conserve resources since humans came down from the trees.
Second, the pseuds seem to imagine that conservation is the answer to all our problems. But the Bangladeshi can never ever conserve his way to a Kenmore. The Bangladeshi needs more energy — it is that simple. Not that self-obsessed greenies give a damn about the plight of Bangladeshis.
Bottom line — we need a supply-side solution to our global energy situation. Conservation is always good — which is why it has been happening for millenia, and will continue to be implemented — but it is not the answer in a world where 2/3 of the human race is underserved.
Benny,
Can you read? Here’s the facts from the EIA:
Word Oil Demand, bbl/d
2003: 79.3
2004: 82.5 (+4.0%)
2005: 83.9 (+1.7%)
2006: 84.7 (+1.0%)
2007: 85.7 (+1.2%)
2008: 87.8 (+2.5%)
WHOOPS! So much for Peak Demand. Of course, 2008 is just a projection, but for some reason the EIA is pretty bullish. May it’s because they look at facts and are not lead by their own misguided opinions.
Peak demand? My ass!
Shell Oil green lights alge
Shell is to become the first major oil company to produce diesel fuel from marine algae.
… Shell plans to begin construction on a pilot plant in Hawaii immediately, which it expects will produce 15 times as much oil for a given area as other biofuel crops, thanks to the efficiency of algal photosynthesis.
According to the source (Shell): The facility will grow only non-modified, marine microalgae species in open-air ponds using proprietary technology. Algae strains used will be indigenous to Hawaii or approved by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Protection of the local environment and marine ecosystem has been central to facility design. Once the algae are harvested, the vegetable oil will be extracted. The facility’s small production volumes will be used for testing.
Open air ponds make a lot of sense. But only recovering the lipid fraction from wild type algae does not make sense. What, are they going to go the biodiesel route?
Here’s a better idea: take the full cell mass and gasify/Fischer-Tropsch! Superior product, as well as technology that Big Oil is well familiar with.
Could be an important story: Big Oil getting into biofuels? Where did I hear that one before?
Optimist:
EIA’s 2007 and 2008 numbers are both projections.
Let’s wait for BP data to come out next year, I think about June. That will be a “final tally” on fossil oil demand for 2007.
BP data is considered authoritative, though I confess I do not know why. Maybe EIA’s numbers are just as good. But, to repeat, both 2007 and 2008 are projections. I contend 2007 will be a flat year. Let’s wait and see.
Kinuachdrach, are you just pretending I had no previous fridge?
That’s a stupid nail to hang an argument on.
Not only that it obscures a very important point … lots of people have refrigerators, units pulling more than that 1000 kWh/yr threshold, who’s new purchase could pay for itself.
Save your dumb blond agruments for when they apply.
Here’s an energy story sure to pick up steam in the New Year: EPA Chief Denies Calif. Limit on Auto Emissions: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson yesterday denied California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA’s lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration’s determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution. A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation’s auto market, have either adopted or pledged to implement California’s proposed tailpipe emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016.
A BOOSH administration lapdog overruling science? Who’da thunk? These guys seem determined to make the term “conservative” a slander.
Optimist:
Also, look at EIA’s numbers: They prject a larger ub=ncrease in oil demand in 2007 than 2006. Does that make sense in light of prices?
Remember, EIA is under pressure to project larger increases in demand, as part of the overall Western government strategy of trying to bamboozle OPEC into more oil production.
Look at IEA projections and subsequent realities.
We are seeing Pak Demand this year. I feel it. It is by far the biggest oil story of the year.
Oh and regarding the new Energy Bill: Does the much bally-hooed 35 mpg standard actually mean anything? First, the bumper sticker– 35mpg by 2020– refers to the entire U.S. auto industry’s annual output of both cars and trucks combined. No one manufacturer has to hit that target. They all have to do it together. Second, the new regs will NOT be footprint based. They’ll be based on a range of potential “attributes” as determined by NHTSA, that could include engine size, torque, payload, four wheel-drive, towing ability, etc. In other words, the regs will vary by both manufacturer AND vehicle type. And that means that the Energy Bill fuel economy provisions are a nightmare for NHTSA’s hard-working bureaucrats and a bit of a con for the average citizen.
Other than a lot of warm air, backslapping and waste paper, this Bill achieves absolutely squat! Nice job, Congressman Spineless!
Proud owner of a Kenmore fridge wrote:
Save your dumb blond agruments for when they apply.
Well, if the wig fits …
Agreed, a person who replaces one fridge with another may be able to save money over a period of time. Of course, it takes energy to make the new fridge & dispose of the old one, and the situation is confused by subsidies, so the real energy savings may be less than the proud consumer thinks.
But reality on Planet Earth is that most human beings today do NOT have a refrigerator. Personally, I don’t want a world where people in Asia & Africa have to be kept in poverty so that wealthy westerners can feel good about atmospheric CO2 concentration. I want a world where every human being who could use a Kenmore has one.
And that means global energy supply will have to increase — substantially.
Personally, I don’t want a world where people in Asia & Africa have to be kept in poverty so that wealthy westerners can feel good about atmospheric CO2 concentration. I want a world where every human being who could use a Kenmore has one.
Well now, there is a nice and meaningless statement!
You think by not owning a fridge you are going to help poor Africans be less poor? Please explain how that is going to work. And while you’re at it, mention whether you own (or use) a fridge.
Feel free to go much further: why do people in Asia & Africa have to be kept in poverty so that wealthy westerners can feel good about atmospheric CO2 concentration. How does that work? Who is doing that?
Poverty in Africa is almost exclusively due to bad leadership. Exhibit A: Nigeria. How do you export oil at $90+/bbl and stay poor? It takes monumental incompetence and corruption.
But I know: all would have been better if they had never been colonized (like Exhibit B: Ethiopia). It’s always the rich white guy’s fault…
Odo – what kind of refrigerator do you have? What makes it different? Most new refrigerators have power factor correction,
I read somewhere that if your appliance was more than about 10 years old it pays to replace it.
Optomist – I dont’ entirely blame EPA. I think the Supreme Court has made a mess of things by their ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. I think they were wrong on the law (states failed to show damages) and wrong on the science. CO2 isn’t a pollutant that directly causes harm. If CO2 needs to be limited then congress needs to legislate it – not the courts.
I wouldn’t have a problem ignoring EPA lawyers and staff. Not long ago we had a meeting with an EPA (can’t tell you specifics because I still have business with them) region over a CAA issue. One of their attorneys showed up with a pony tail and sandals and some very new and creative interpretations of the rules.
That said, even I would have granted their stupid waiver. But I would have asked car manufacturers to fully load the costs of the program on cars sold in whatever states were in on the waiver.
The rest of the country ends up paying higher costs because California doesn’t want drilling off their coastline, doesn’t want LNG imports or coal-fired power plants, no new nuclear power or any other infrastructure. So the power plants set up shop just across the border and car makers raise everyones prices just a little to pay for whatever rules California wants.
“I want a world where every human being who could use a Kenmore has one.”
Optimist opined:
Well now, there is a nice and meaningless statement!
Don’t be deliberately obtuse, optimist! You know exactly what that statement means. And, as an “optimist”, you must agree with it.
One Frenchman today uses about as much energy as 70 Bangladeshis. France consumes about as much energy as the entire continent of Africa. The answer is not to get rid of France, it is to expand the global supply of energy substantially, so that all human beings can enjoy the living standards that the French take for granted today.
Global energy is a supply-side issue. Surely an optimist can understand that?
And since we are on this kick, let me add another point which should appeal to an optimist: The tough problems with expanding the global supply of energy are not technical, they are political.
“Remember, EIA is under pressure to project larger increases in demand, as part of the overall Western government strategy of trying to bamboozle OPEC into more oil production.”
If us lowly bloggers are on to this scam, how in the world is it going to fool OPEC?
Armchair-
I don’t think it is working. And, to be honest, I am surmising this. EIA and IEA estimates have been proving high for 2-3 years.
But, as consuming nations, we should be pushing for more production.
The tough problems with expanding the global supply of energy are not technical, they are political.
Well exactly! So what do you want us to do about it?
The problem is in today’s politically correct world, you are not allowed to think (much less speak) the truth. Add to that spineless congressmen and senators, a White House hellbent on admitting no error and lazy reporting (“Local man stung by a bee! Details coming up!”). And let’s not start with the me-too presidential candidates…
So political solutions are not particularly forthcoming, even in my optimistic view.
So political solutions are not particularly forthcoming, even in my optimistic view.
Give it time. People will have to feel pain before anything really starts to change.
The optimistic angle is that once people have had enough pain and political correctness is swept aside, there are viable technological solutions on the table today. Hopefully, tomorrow there will be even better options.
http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html
small nuke
Mark
“Agreed, a person who replaces one fridge with another may be able to save money over a period of time. Of course, it takes energy to make the new fridge & dispose of the old one, and the situation is confused by subsidies, so the real energy savings may be less than the proud consumer thinks.”
That’s why I have you a very serious study in my first response.
King … it’s a fairly vanilla Energy Star top-freezer.
There is an interesting fudge factor you may not know about. Side-by-side (and bottom-freezer) refrigerators are judged by lower criteria for Energy Star. It is in their nature to use more power: surface to volume for side-by-side, and I guess insulation loss on bottom-freezers.
So when someone buys an Energy Star side-by-side they’ll get the style, but not the efficiency.
Choosing somewhat randomly, an Energy Star Kenmore 20.6 cu ft top-freezer costs under $600 and uses 432 kWh/yr. An Energy Star Kenmore 21.7 cu ft side-by-side costs about $1000 and uses 570 kWh/yr.
Odo – thanks for the info. I figured you for a Vestfrost (250 kWh/yr) or some other exotic brand.
We have replaced the refrigerators in our house also as part of our overall drive to reduce power consumption. The wife had to have the cool GE Profile side-by-side though.
I will report back after the first of the year, but through November we have reduced electric consumption by 15.3% saving us $700 in electricity.
Our dishwasher gave out last year, switched to a quieter, more energy efficient model.
Our washer/dryer is next to go. Six years ago we switched to a front load washer. It really reduced our water and power consumption. But it is starting to fall apart. Will be going to even more efficient washer and a gas drier.
Our dishwasher gave out last year, switched to a quieter, more energy efficient model.
How’s that been working out for you? We also got the quiter model, but based on the half-assed job it’s been doing, my conclusion is that it is quiet because it ain’t working.
The optimistic angle is that once people have had enough pain and political correctness is swept aside, there are viable technological solutions on the table today. Hopefully, tomorrow there will be even better options.
After 20-30 years of independence in Africa, this argument is beginning to wear a bit thin. How much more pain can the citizens of Zimbabwe suffer? So far nothing seems to touch Mugabe.
Of course, in the US a different dynamic is at play: the average voter is overworked and intellectually exhausted (somebody has to do the work to support Mr CEO’s multimillion salary). So there is not a lot of capacity for working through the finer details of policy proposals. Both parties exploit this by reducing each other’s proposals to one-liners, while faithfully serving the money that keeps them in power.
So I tend to be more of a “get the government out of the way” kind of guy.
$1/Watt solar panels
Well-financed solar start-up Nanosolar on Tuesday said it has started shipping its flexible thin-film solar cells, meeting its own deadline and marking a milestone for alternative solar-cell materials.
On the company’s blog, CEO Martin Roscheisen announced that the first megawatt of its solar panels will be used as part of a power plant in eastern Germany.
… Roscheisen said the manufacturing process the company has developed will enable it to eventually deliver solar electricity for less than a dollar per watt, which would be significantly cheaper than fossil fuel sources of power generation.
Under $1/watt eventually? Aww… I was hoping they could do it today. I didn’t realize it was still a projection and not reality.
Optomist – funny you should mention that. We got a GE Profile. I don’t think it cleans as well as the Jenn Aire builder grade appliance we had before. But it is much quiter and uses less energy.
We had problems with the detergent dispenser getting clogged. I fixed it and it seems to work better.
I wish the solar guys success. The current bid is $13,000 for panel 2. At 200 watts that is like what? $65/watt. I plugged that price into my solar model. I think I’ll wait until the price comes down a bit.
“somebody has to do the work to support Mr CEO’s multimillion salary”
People seem to have a high discomfort level for excessive CEO compensation (and they have a fair point). Yet no one seems to be bothered that an actress whose main talent is a pretty face can make tens of millions per year, or that a moderately successful pitcher can pull in $1500 per pitch.
CEO’s at least run large complex organizations and provide a lot of jobs. Actors and athletes and the like earn 8 figure incomes… and do what, exactly, for the rest of us?
Am I off topic or what? 🙂
Re: Nanosolar.
The pricing comments can be taken two ways. i.e. Eventually they will have perfected the technology so they will be able to sell their Panels at $1/watt; Or that they will be able to sell for $1/watt when at such time market forces require them to sell at that level. In another interview I read that he said he wasn’t looking to get in a price war with First Solar. There doesn’t seem to be a need for that since neither company seem to be able to make the panels fast enough to keep up with demand. So why should they sell at $1/watt when they can see all they can make for $2.40+
Hopefully production for both companies and other will eventually satisfy the demand and then pricing will start to drop more.
Anyone know enough about PV system design to know why the “high current” attribute of their panel will lead to a lower Bal. of Plant cost?
Oh, I have no expectation that Nanosolar would sell their panels for 99c/W now, but if Roscheisen had left out the word “will” in
“the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt“
from his blog
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels/
then I would have believed that they are capable (but unwilling) today to profitably sell for 99c/W.
Maybe I can hope that it’s just the process of working out the kinks involved in starting up any new factory, and not a question of needing to perfect technology.
Optimist wrote:
So I tend to be more of a “get the government out of the way” kind of guy.
Have to agree there. Enthusiasts tend to forget that government is merely people — and not necessarily the best people, as your example of Zimbabwe shows.
But the people of Zimbabwe have not been effective at getting government out of the way either. Tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of patriots, as someone once said. People get the government they deserve, as another said.
But back to alternate energy — government involvement is a definite negative. US government is forcing adoption of inappropriate technologies. Much better to have government limit itself to removing excessive regulatory barriers to new technology, and providing general encouragement through an X-Prize type device.
No new manufacutring facility can sell its product for slightly above cost. First the cost of the facility must be recouped.
This alone means that the new plants product price will decline over time (assuming competitve pressure).
So, after Nanosolar has recovered its infrastructure costs, it can sell solar panels for $1/Watt