From Acciona wins 1,300 MW in new U.S. projects:
Spanish construction firm Acciona, the world’s largest wind power developer, says it has won rights to develop 1,300 megawatts (MW) of wind assets in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin.
…
Acciona is to supply its own wind turbines for the development projects from its new U.S. production facility in Iowa.Peter Duprey, CEO of Acciona Energy North America, said the deal “fits extremely well with the addition of our wind turbine manufacturing facility in Iowa and leveraging the local support for wind energy in the Midwest.”
Once again: Renewable energy typically means localized manufacturing, installation, and maintenance jobs, with no money leaving the country to buy fuel.
From 2007 seen as second warmest year as climate shifts:
This year is on track to be the second warmest since records began in the 1860s and floods in Pakistan or a heatwave in Greece may herald worse disruptions in store from global warming, experts said on Friday.
“2007 is looking as though it will be the second warmest behind 1998,” said Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, which provides data to the U.N.’s International Meteorological Organization.
“It isn’t far behind … it could change, but at the moment this looks unlikely,” he told Reuters, based on temperature records up to the end of April.
…
Almost all climate experts say that the trend is towards more droughts, floods, heatwaves and more powerful storms. But they say that individual extreme events are not normally a sign of global warming because weather is, by its nature, chaotic.“Severe events are going to be more frequent,” said Salvano Briceno, director of the Geneva-based secretariat of the U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990. Last year ranked number six according to the IMO. NASA, which uses slightly different data, places 2005 as warmest ahead of 1998.
No doubt the global warming denier spin on this will be: The warming trend already reversing! Scientists admit bad weather not proof of global warming!
Just sayin’.
From New hybrids will help clean up SUVs’ act:
While Chrysler Group is convinced the love affair many North American consumers have with large SUVs isn’t going to fade away any time soon — even with high fuel prices — the gas-guzzling reputation those vehicles have earned is about to take a hit.
Chrysler provided a sneak peek into the future of large SUVs during a media preview of its 2008 lineup at its Chelsea proving grounds. Journalists were given an opportunity to drive a Chrysler Aspen Hybrid and a Dodge Durango Hybrid, both powered by a two-mode hybrid system the company is developing in conjunction with General Motors and BMW.
…
Klegon says the Hemi hybrid system will give buyers “the best of both worlds — renowned performance and significantly improved fuel economy … the ultimate combination of fuel efficiency, overall performance and capability in a full-sized SUV.”
Overall fuel efficiency is expected to improve by about 25%, while fuel consumption in city use will be reduced by about 40%, compared with the Hemionly Durango, which is rated at 16.5 litres/100 km in the city and 11.2 on the highway.
See the article for a semi-detailed description of the two-mode hybrid system.
And as for those fuel efficiency numbers… 16.5l/100km = 14.3MPG, and 11.2l/100km = 23.4MPG. Adjusting for the claimed benefits of the hybrid system gives us a city rating of 20MPG.
You will forgive me if I find the willpower not to rush to my nearest dealer and put down a deposit.
But seriously, folks–this has to be one of the most absurd examples you can find of a company trying to find any means possible to hang on to “business as usual”. Yes, I know that such instincts are a critical part of our energy future, as they will spur more innovation which can often be applied in other areas, such as using this two-mode hybrid system on, say, a PT Cruiser, until they can convert to something truly exciting, like a plug-in series hybrid platform. But it still makes my head hurt to see the tortured route some companies take to the obvious, inevitable, and superior solution.
From Peak Oil Theorists Gush Obfuscation!:
I know its too much to expect that determined peak oil theorists like ASPO co-founder Steve Andrews will suddenly admit they’re wrong-no matter how many times their predictions of doomsday come and go without the world coming to an end. Sometimes all you can do is to shake your head at the stubborn denial. But Mr. Andrew’s rejoinder here on the Huffington Post, to my “Peak Oil is Snake Oil!” piece of 6/25/07 requires some untangling to get at the pertinent facts.
Oh, yippee–the Learsy/ASPO slapfight has legs and will drag on for who knos how many rounds, with no one convincing anyone and the only “winner” being Huffington Post for hosting this debacle and drumming up more web traffic.
Public hint to ASPO: Arguing with some people is like trying to teach your cat algebra. You look silly for trying and the cat learns nothing.
From The Problem’s Not Peak Oil, It’s Politics:
Some “peak oil” cassandras warn that global energy production will soon fall into permanent decline. But a more immediate danger to world oil supplies may be the tempestuous politics of many producing countries.
A couple of points here:
First, with the proper definition of “more immediate”, this is inarguably true. Will upheavals outside the US, real or potential, have a bigger impact on oil prices over the next 6 or 12 months? Of course they will. But five years from now we’re facing an all but certain oil crunch due to market fundamentals, with the additional possibility of “tempestuous politics” kicking the situation into high gear.
Second, I really wish people who use the term “Cassandra” as a pejorative would take a few minutes to look it up, as in its Wikipedia entry. The key point in that myth is that she was right about the future and no one believed her. The fact that her predictions were shunned as a punishment for her own actions, typically infidelity to Apollo, makes it all the more of a perfect fit for peakers–there have been many predictions of a peak in the past, which obviously proved to be false, and those past actions are one of the main reasons it’s so freakin;’ hard to get people to take the threat of peak oil seriously.
And yes, I realize that some people, possibly including the author I quoted above, are no doubt aware of the Cassandra myth and are using it properly to indicate that the peakers are right but are being ignored. I strongly suspect that they’re a tiny minority of the people who throw around the “Cassandra” label.
Sorry for the late start this morning, folks. I had a last-minute appointment to get a recently installed dental crown “adjusted”. For the next few days I’ll be chewing on one side of my mouth and hoping that it’s not a condition that will require a root canal [insert Sam Kinison scream here].
So, what’s on your energy-saturated minds?
See The Oil Age Poster for a 24×36-inch poster of past and projected world oil production, plus gob o’ other stats. It’s a nice addition to any room, and it makes a great gift.
See Start Here for RealClimate’s excellent page of global warming resources, divided into sections based on your experience level.
Of particular value is the section at the end, “Informed, but seeking serious discussion of common contrarian talking points”. I would have called it something like, “Informed, but in need of ninja debating skills to fend off hordes of global warming deniers,” but to each his or her own, I suppose.
See Dave Cohen’s The Gulf of Despair? on the ASPO-USA site for an excellent overview (even by Dave’s standards) of the projected oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.
Very highly recommended.
Can we please quietly strangle the line about how “the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone”? Please???
I hear this stupid line repeated all the time, and it drive me nuts.
First, by what measure did the stone age end? Our “modern” world uses more stone, in absolute as well as per capita terms, than we ever did during what’s normally called the stone age. Today we use astonishing amounts of granite, marble, limestone, and crushed stone for various decorative and structural purposes; we didn’t stop using stone, we simply added other technologies.
Second, the original line is very often used as a too-cute-by-half way of saying that we’ll simply move on, gracefully and painlessly, from oil to Something Better. Forget it, it ain’t gonna happen, kids. We’re far too dependent on oil including too much built-up infrastructure, we have no easy exit path from oil in terms of a magic alternative (or combination of alternatives), and we’re much too close to the oil crunch. This will hurt, a lot, and anyone who suggests otherwise is just plain wrong.
(And yes, I’ve decided to talk more about the oil crunch–a severe supply/demand imbalance–instead of the peak, since the former is what we really care about because that’s what will trigger vastly higher oil prices and widespread economic pain.)
From Giant microwave turns plastic back to oil:
A US company is taking plastics recycling to another level – turning them back into the oil they were made from, and gas.
All that is needed, claims Global Resource Corporation (GRC), is a finely tuned microwave and – hey presto! – a mix of materials that were made from oil can be reduced back to oil and combustible gas (and a few leftovers).
Key to GRC’s process is a machine that uses 1200 different frequencies within the microwave range, which act on specific hydrocarbon materials. As the material is zapped at the appropriate wavelength, part of the hydrocarbons that make up the plastic and rubber in the material are broken down into diesel oil and combustible gas.
First, I’ve been wondering for some time how long it would take before we begin large scale mining of US landfills for various metals, plastics (to be turned in to oil), etc. If this microwave technology is economical, we could have just taken a big step in that direction.
Second, the big question is the economics, which in this case means the efficiency of the process. How much electricity does the microwave gizmo consume? The article doesn’t say, but it does point out that one recycling company has already ordered one and expects it to recover enough oil to fuel itself and “a number of other machines” the company uses.
From Cellulosic ethanol breakthrough:
POET (formerly Broin), the largest dry-mill ethanol producer, has produced cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs. The company announced the results of the successful test along with their intentions to make cobs and corn fiber the feedstock for a commercial cellulosic ethanol production facility that will be jointly funded with the US Department of Energy (DOE).
…
The cellulosic project that POET is jointly funding with the DOE will convert an existing 50 million gallon per year (mgpy) dry-mill ethanol plant in Emmetsburg, Iowa into a commercial cellulosic biorefinery.The project is named LIBERTY: Launch of an Integrated Bio-refinery with Eco-sustainable and Renewable Technologies in Y2009. Once complete, the facility will produce 125 mgpy of ethanol, 25% of which will be from cellulosic feedstock.
…
By adding cellulosic production to an existing grain ethanol plant, POET will be able to produce 11% more ethanol from a bushel of corn and 27% more from an acre of corn, while almost completely eliminating fossil fuel consumption and decreasing water usage by 24%.
Never forget that everything in our energy and environmental situation is a moving target. Everything. Consider what happens if this technology works as expected and can then be used to retrofit many of the existing corn/starch ethanol plants in the US. That would provide a substantial kicker in addition to the pure-cellulosic plants that will be coming online in just a year or so.
From Desertification threat to global stability: U.N. study:
Desertification could drive tens of millions of people from their homes, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia, a U.N. study warned on Thursday.
People displaced by desertification put new strains on natural resources and on other societies nearby and threaten international instability, the 46-page study by the U.N. University showed.
“There is a chain reaction. It leads to social turmoil,” Zafaar Adeel, the study’s lead author and head of the U.N. University’s International Network on Water, Environment and Health, said.
From Kremlin lays claim to huge chunk of oil-rich North Pole:
It is already the world’s biggest country, spanning 11 time zones and stretching from Europe to the far east. But yesterday Russia signalled its intention to get even bigger by announcing an audacious plan to annex a vast 460,000 square mile chunk of the frozen and ice-encrusted Arctic.
According to Russian scientists, there is new evidence backing Russia’s claim that its northern Arctic region is directly linked to the North Pole via an underwater shelf.
…
On Monday, however, a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage on a nuclear icebreaker. They had travelled to the Lomonosov ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia’s remote and inhospitable eastern Arctic Ocean.According to Russia’s media, the geologists returned with the “sensational news” that the Lomonosov ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia’s claim over the oil-and-gas rich triangle. The territory contained 10bn tonnes of gas and oil deposits, the scientists said.
…
The Law of the Sea Treaty is the world’s primary means of settling disputes over exploitation rights and navigational routes in international waters. Russia and 152 other countries have ratified it.But the US has refused, arguing it gives too much power to the UN. If the US does not ratify it, Russia’s bid for the Arctic’s energy wealth will go unchallenged, proponents believe.
Fights over the resources in the Arctic and Antarctic regions will only intensify (and get stranger) in the coming years.
And don’t expect Russia, a country that’s shown no hesitation in using its energy resources as a weapon, to play nice.
From Dingell: Climate Change Can Wait:
A key House of Representatives energy panel will wait until autumn to craft major energy and climate change legislation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and dependence on crude oil imports, the head of the committee said today.
The comments from Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D., Mich.) come as the panel marks up a version of energy legislation that focuses on energy efficiency, improved power grids and developing renewable-fuel production and infrastructure. Dingell noted, however, that major provisions that committee members were hoping to include in the bill will be left out.
The Chairman said legislation to increase motor fuel efficiency, encourage coal-to-liquids technology as an alternative fuel, and have a renewable energy mandate “will be addressed in the fall in the context of comprehensive climate-change legislation.” Earlier in June, Dingell and Boucher, chairman of an energy and air quality subcommittee, said they would drop the most controversial measures outlined in draft energy policy legislation. Instead, Dingell said, “we are proceeding with legislation where there is consensus.”
Hey, no biggie–it’s not like any of this energy and environmental stuff is important or a pressing problem, or anything…
Jerome a Paris has a diary up over at Daily Kos, Top official: without Iraqi oil, we hit the wall in 2015, that provides an English translation of some snippets from an interview with Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, that appeared in Le Monde. The diary also contains JaP’s own assessment of the rest of the interview.
The four parts in English that JaP provides:
If Iraqi production does not rise exponentially by 2015, we have a very big problem, even if Saudi Arabia fulfills all its promises. The numbers are very simple, there’s no need to be an expert.
Within 5 to 10 years, non-OPEP [OPEC?] production will reach a peak and begin to decline, as reserves run out. There are new proofs of that fact every day. At the same we’ll see the peak of China’s economic growth. The two events will coincide: the explosion of Chinese growth, and the fall in non-OPEP [OPEC?] oil production. Will the oil world manage to face that twin shock is an open question.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of talk, but very little action. I really hope that consuming nations will understand the gravity of the situation and put in place radical and extremely tough policies to curb oil demand growth.
I understand the Saudi government claims 230 billion barrels of reserves, and I have no official reason not to believe these numbers. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia - as well as other producing countries and oil companies - should be more transparent in their numbers. Oil is a crucial good for all of us and we have the right to know how much oil, as per international standards, is left.
As JaP correctly points out in his diary, this is unusually blunt talk from someone in Birol’s position. I think it should be considered one of the (if not the) most prominent “the peak is now or very soon” statements we’ve heard to date. (Others have come from Colin Campbell, Ken Deffeyes, David Goodstein, T. Boone Pickens, Matt Simmons, and Chris Skrebowski.)
I honestly don’t know how much louder and clearer the alarm bells have to ring before enough of us pay attention. It could well be too late: With all signs pointing to the OPEC showdown materializing later this year, our first hint from the market’s invisible hand that things have changed radically might be a right jab that loosens a few teeth, and not a gentle tap on the shoulder.
What’s the bigger threat, global warming or peak oil?
Yes, I’m intentionally being inexcusably vague. Define your own time frame(s), meaning of the word “threat”, etc.
In the interest of playing fair, let me go first.
Both threats are very serious, but they’re likely to play out on different time scales.
In the short to mid-term, perhaps the next 15 years, peak oil will hit the industrialized world much harder than global warming will. Our extreme level of dependence on oil for transportation is our Achilles’ heel, and even if we make it through 2008 without a major price spike caused by fundamentals or a hurricane or a war or who knows what else, I seriously doubt we’ll get beyond 2010 or 2012 before everything hits the fan.
During this same time frame, global warming won’t be sitting by idly, of course. It will continue to cause heat waves, some sea level rise, massive changes in precipitation patterns, and increased drought at least in part from the reduction in mountain snow packs. But the truly crippling effects likely won’t arrive until well after this admittedly arbitrary 15-year period.
I’m very concerned about what happens later in this time frame as we struggle with both a desperate need to reduce CO2 emissions and the even more immediate need to keep critical goods moving at a price that doesn’t cause economic devastation. The temptation to use CTL technology and tell ourselves that we can successfully capture enough of the CO2 or that it’s a reasonable tradeoff will be overwhelming once oil and gasoline are both at science fiction-y price levels.
We can greatly reduce some portions of our transportation oil demand (fly less, car pool more, telecommute more, drive smarter, etc.) to leave more oil for the genuinely important uses, but that’s only a stop-gap measure.
My guess is that despite the ever louder and more dire warnings from the scientific community we won’t reduce CO2 emissions by nearly as much as we must. We will very likely see all the major CO2 emitting countries reporting numbers which should add up to a new total of X parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, only to find out year after year that scientists are actually measuring X + Y ppm, with Y being a growing Big CO2 Lie Factor.
In the longer run (15 to 50 years from now), we could see enough acceleration of global warming effects from the albedo flip to ever-quicker ice sheet disintegration, that sea level increases will begin to threaten far more than “just” the inhabitants of those Pacific island nations who are already in trouble. By then, things will be getting quite ugly, and we’ll like resorting to some combination of geoengineering fixes–orbiting or ground-based mirrors, seeding the ocean, etc.–in a desperate attempt to reverse a process that’s been building for decades.
So–what’s your vision of where we’re headed?
See A Saturated Gassy Argument for a somewhat lengthly, excellent discussion of the greenhouse effect, including several references for further self study.
Very highly recommended, as is everything at RealClimate.org.
From Opec must lift oil supply: energy report:
The price of oil will soar in the coming months, unless the Opec crude cartel ramps up output, the Centre for Global Energy Studies said in a report published on Monday.
“The world needs more oil if another price surge is to be avoided,” the London-based energy research group said in a monthly study.
The influential CGES added: “Oil prices will continue to rise over the summer unless Opec relaxes its production restraint”.
…
Meanwhile it was reported that total Opec oil production fell by 360,000 barrels per day to 30.16 million barrels per day in May, after Iranian exports returned to their long-term average levels following two months of additional sales from floating storage.
The Middle East Economic Survey reported that the May production for the ten members of Opec was down 330,000 barrels per day to 26.55 million barrels per day from April.
From Pump prices may have hit lowest point:
Two factors may halt the decline [in gasoline prices], energy experts say.
– Costs for crude oil, the raw material used to produce gasoline, have jumped 7 percent in the past month, pushed higher by violence in Nigeria. Crude oil for future delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed Tuesday at $67.77 per barrel.
– Americans like to drive around the July Fourth holiday, pushing up the demand for fuel.
Once again, worldwide oil demand and supply are on a collision course for later this year, and we could well “see some serious shit”, as Doc Brown famously said in Back to the Future.
Some prior posts on this:
Three articles appeared in my in-box this morning about financing of renewable energy. Coincidence? I think not…
All mock paranoia aside, we’re still in the early stages of the financial markets adjusting to the new reality brought about by the mainstreaming of global warming awareness and therefore the importance of renewable energy. This transition isn’t nearly as sexy for energy geeks as (for example) news about a higher efficiency solar cell or a new way to extra wave or tidal energy, but it’s every bit as important. Without major flows of money there’s no R&D and no deployment of all that sexy new technology, and therefore no benefit from it.
Who knows–maybe we should bring back the green eye shades for the money movers. (Green–get it?)
From REFF: Investment Trends & the Global Renewables Market:
Despite its government’s slow action on the issue of climate change, the U.S. financial community has done what it has always done so well, and that is pour money at an opportunity, i.e., the renewable energy sector. That was just one of the messages heard by the nearly 700 attendees during the 4th Annual Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF) Wall Street last week.
Welcoming everyone to the “great renewable technology intersection” of markets, projects and people, American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) President Michael Eckhart addressed an audience of financiers, corporate executives, project developers, and financial professionals during his opening remarks on the state of the renewable energy industry at New York City’s Waldorf-Astoria on Park Avenue.
The two-day event, hosted by ACORE in conjunction with Euromoney, featured sessions on financing techniques, transactions, project lending, project investing, corporate finance, venture capital and institutional investment—as well as featured industry and government speakers analyzing current and future renewable investment trend in biofuels, solar and wind.
From Global Annual Investment in Renewable Energy Hits $100 Billion:
The investment capital flowing into renewable energy technologies reached $100 billion in 2006, according to an analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Of that, a record $71 billion was invested in companies and new sector opportunities, up 43% from 2005, while roughly $30 billion was due to mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, and asset refinancing. Wind power, solar energy, and biofuels are drawing most of the investments, including roughly $28 billion invested in new generating capacity. In addition, venture capital and private equity investors poured $2.3 billion into biofuels, $1.4 billion into solar energy, and $1.3 billion into wind power, mainly to increase manufacturing capacity. According to the report, renewable energy investment is nearly evenly split between the United States and Europe.
While some may be tempted to compare the renewable energy investment boom to the earlier dotcom boom, the UNEP report notes that the renewable energy boom is underpinned by real demand, growing regulatory support, the considerable backing of tangible assets, and increasing revenues. Most if not all of these factors were lacking during the dotcom boom, which ultimately became a burst bubble. See the UNEP press release (PDF 392 KB) and the full report (PDF 2.7 MB).
From Trends in Renewable Energy Finance:
Here’s an audio postcard from the Wall Street Renewable Energy Finance Forum held in New York City this past week. The forum brought together policy makers, financiers and project developers to discuss current trends and future projections for investment opportunities in the renewable energy industries. The event was hosted by Euromoney and the American Council On Renewable Energy.
The podcast is available here.
From IATA report: Fuel replaces labour as largest cost for airlines in 2006:
The Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (CAPA) reports that a recent International air Transport Association (IATA) sample of the financial reports of 45 major global airlines reveals that fuel replaced labour as the largest single cost item for the global airline industry in 2006. This marks the first time ever that fuel costs have outpaced that of labour.
According to the IATA analysis, fuel accounted for 25.5 per cent of total operating costs for carriers in 2006, up from 22.5 per cent in 2005, while labour (including pension) expenses fell from 24.2 per cent in 2005, to 23.3 per cent in 2006.
…
According to CAPA, the silver lining in the cloud for the global airline industry is that IATA expects fuel prices to soften slightly over the next two years, with the average price per barrel of jet fuel tipped to fall from $80 in 2007 and $75 in 2008.
Of course fuel has risen in cost share relative to labor–fuel costs rose in absolute terms and labor costs dropped, dramatically in some cases, thanks to salary cuts and downsizing at some airlines.
As for the prediction that fuel prices will drop slightly in 2008, that’s entirely possible. Oil and oil product prices will trend upwards, but will also show a lot of volatility and even some short-term down periods as the world economy adjusts to those higher prices.
From GE Unit’s First Investment in NY Wind Energy to Boost State’s Wind Power by Over 70 Percent:
GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of GE (NYSE: GE), will help boost wind energy capacity in New York State by more than 70 percent with an investment in three Noble Environmental Power windparks that will generate 282 megawatts in Clinton and Wyoming Counties. The GE unit’s first investment in wind energy in New York State will increase the state’s wind energy capacity to 671 megawatts. The projects, located in the towns of Clinton and Ellenburg in Clinton County, and Bliss in Wyoming County, New York, represent a $564 million investment in clean, renewable energy that will bring an estimated $352 million in new revenue to the regional economies over the next 20 years.
…
The 100.5-megawatt Noble Clinton Windpark, employing 67 GE 1.5-megawatt SLE wind turbines, is located three miles south of the US-Canadian border and 15 miles northwest of Plattsburgh, NY, in the town of Clinton in Clinton County. Also located in Clinton County, the 81-megawatt Noble Ellenburg Windpark uses 54 GE 1.5-megawatt SLE turbines. The 100.5-megawatt Noble Bliss Windpark, which uses 67 GE 1.5-megawatt SLE turbines, is located 30 miles southeast of Buffalo in the town of Eagle in Wyoming County.
More wind power = goodness
Big-ass wind power project not too far from Lou = more goodness
Continued acceptance of wind power by the public (despite the continued wailing of the remaining Luddites) = priceless
From How Does the U.S. Ocean Energy Industry Compare with the Rest of the World?:
The International Energy Agency published a Report last year that shows the U.S. running second behind the U.K. in the number of ocean renewable technologies being developed. According to the report, the United Kingdom is working on 29 different types of technologies while the U.S. is working on 13. Canada and Norway are tied for third — each working on seven different types of technology.
…
The good news is that ocean renewables have begun to capture the attention of U.S. lawmakers and a number of ocean renewable bills are working their way through the halls of Congress. Washington Congressman Jay Inslee introduced a bill last month “to promote the development and use of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.” The legislation has 17 co-sponsors. Oregon Congresswoman Darlene Hooley recently introduced a marine renewable energy research and development bill with nine co-sponsors. West Virginia Congressman Nick Rahall has introduced a broad energy package that includes ocean renewables as part of the solution “to reduce our Nation’s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy.”
See the article for links to the report mentioned above and the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition’s web site.
From Nuclear power analyzed from warming angle:
Nuclear power could curb climate change but it would have to expand worldwide at the rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade, and keep up that rate for half a century, a report compiled by environmentalists, academics and nuclear industry proponents said on Thursday.
Specifically, that would require adding on average 14 plants each year for the next 50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace those that will be retired, the report said.
…
While the report also supported storing U.S. nuclear waste at power plants until the long-stalled Yucca Mountain repository opens, 10 dumps the size of Yucca Mountain would be needed to store the extra generated waste by the needed nuclear generation boom.
You can grab the entire report here (108-page, 2MB PDF).
I have to wonder how much longer it will take before people figure out that the “nuclear power is the silver bullet that will save us from global warming” meme is a humongous steaming pile. Nuclear power is much more expensive and less reliable than most people realize, and it creates one hell of a waste management problem that lasts, in human terms, forever.
From Floating wind turbine may be in sea by 2009:
The world’s first floating wind turbine could be generating electricity in the North Sea in 2009 under a research pact between Norwegian energy group Norsk Hydro and German engineering firm Siemens.
Floating wind turbines would represent a technological breakthrough for offshore power generation, which has had to rely on shallow sites for turbines installed on the seabed.
…
If tests of the 5 megawatt wind turbine were successful, a small offshore wind park could be built around 2013-14. Siemens said it would spend several million euros on the research project, on which Hydro has already spent 30 million crowns.
It’s easy to think of wind power as a simple, mature technology, when in fact we’re still seeing a lot of improvements in ways to turn moving air into moving electrons. Floating turbines, new designs for more efficient blades or better vertical-axis turbines, better ways to merge wind power into existing grids, etc.
This is all driven by economics, of course. For a long time it only made sense to use wind power in a very crude, brute force way–turbines placed where the strongest, most reliable wind blew over accessible land near large power consuming areas that could easily incorporate the intermittent power into the local grid. But with rising electricity generation costs and the growing awareness that we have to make the market reflect the negative externalities of fossil fuels (by making them more expensive or by making wind cheaper through subsidies), we’re taking a much finer-grained view of wind, and developing technology to exploit its less convenient forms and incarnations.
It’s about freakin’ time.
From Gov. Rendell Dedicates Locust Ridge Wind Farm in PA:
[Pennsylvania] Governor Edward G. Rendell set in motion the wind turbines of Pennsylvania’s newest wind farm June 19, saying the state’s strategic investments in and commitment to renewable energy technologies are helping the commonwealth. Locust Ridge will produce 68,328 megawatt-hours annually.
…
The wind farm, owned by Iberdrola, was developed by its affiliate, Community Energy Inc., which has more than 2,000 MW of wind power capacity at projects already operating or are in development. Gamesa constructed the 13 turbines at the Locust Ridge Wind Farm. Both companies are international clean energy leaders that chose to establish operations in Pennsylvania as a result of the Rendell administration’s energy policies and strategic investments.Pennsylvania is already a leader in wind energy production on the East Coast with 179 megawatts (MW) of capacity, including Locust Ridge. Within the next 12 months, the commonwealth expects new wind farm projects will add another 214 MW of capacity and more than double the state’s current capacity.
First, Pennsylvania is one of the best places imaginable for wind power in the eastern US. It has an incredible amount of virgin forest plus many mountain ridges that provide excellent access to good wind conditions. (I live in Wilkes-Barre, PA for about seven years, and while the line that the Keystone State is “Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and not much in the middle” isn’t true, it’s close enough to get long time ride runners upset.)
Second, I don’t know how they figure that PA “is already a leader in wind energy production on the East Coast with 179 megawatts (MW) of capacity”. New York, at 370 MW is where? The southwest?
From A strategic perspective on 21st century energy challenges:
Energy will be one of the two or three defining issues we’ll face over the next decade. Since post-1999, we’ve essentially been in a crisis mode. That’s the result of an accumulation of factors.
Recommended.
From Greenland ice may melt much faster: U.N. scientist:
New research shows that man-made climate change could cause the Greenland ice sheet to break up in hundreds, rather than thousands, of years, the chair of a United Nations panel of scientists said on Monday.
Its entire collapse would raise sea-levels globally by around 7 meters (23 feet), they said.
…
The new research shows rapid melting on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet. Meltwater is disappearing down huge crevasses, and theory suggests that water will lubricate the bottom of the ice sheet and speed up its flow into the sea.
…
Metz underlined the scale of the problem in trying to establish control over greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years, the most ambitious target his report considered.“It’s a huge challenge to turn around the supertanker of global emissions within 10 years. Many would say it’s impossible,” he told the conference. “I’m not saying that yet.”
I’m convinced that this is part of an ongoing pattern we’ll be living with for years–new discoveries and confirmations of suspicions showing how much more rapidly the climate can change and is changing in response to CO2 emissions.
Everyone concerned about our energy situation, including me, talks endlessly about that singular event, the one-time peak of worldwide oil production. We argue about whether it will happen (at least the slow kids still seriously question that point), when it will happen, how quickly the supply will decline post-peak, and whether we’d be better off, from a global warming perspective, with a peak sooner rather than later.
If you tapped into the keystrokes of all those people posting all those opinions online I’d bet you could harvest enough spare mechanical energy to light up Binghamton, NY.
But are we really asking the right questions about peak oil?
In one sense, it seems obvious we are. Peak oil is a once-ever event involving the inevitable reduction in worldwide supply of a phenomenally useful form of stored energy that fuels nearly all transportation in industrialized countries around the world. How the hell could that not be a Very Big Deal?
The question is not an absolute one (is it a big deal?), but a relative one (is it the biggest deal?), even without dragging the specter of global warming into the discussion. And in that light, the answer isn’t nearly as cut and dried.
What’s a bigger deal than peak oil? The interaction of supply and demand that will trigger much higher oil prices. After all, that’s what we really care about, a sharp reduction in oil consumption forced on us by market conditions. And there are only two ways that can manifest itself: Higher oil prices or an outright shortage (which is usually spoken of by economists as being equivalent to an infinitely high price–i.e. you can’t get the good or service at any price because there just isn’t any available). We won’t have a worldwide oil supply disruption, but are we already seeing a permanent run-up in prices leading to the Oil Crunch? (Remember that oil prices were much lower not that long ago. Three years ago today the NYMEX price for oil was a paltry $37.55US/barrel.)
I can imagine the hard core peakers sputtering and saying that once we hit the peak oil supply can only go down. First, that’s not strictly true. Oil supply will never exceed the peak level, by definition, but it will certainly not decline steadily (a classic monotonically decreasing function). It will likely have some short increases as various projects come online or more advanced extraction technologies are applied to older fields.
Second, we only care about the level of supply relative to demand. If worldwide oil production capacity peaks and then declines at about 4% per year on average, but demand declines by more than 4%, we have low prices and no problem. If worldwide supply magically continues to grow for the next 20 or 30 years, and demand grows even faster, then we still have an Oil Crunch, even in the absence of a production peak.
So, what to do? Stop talking about peak oil completely and focus on the supply and demand situation building to the oil crunch? That would likely make the job of getting people to focus on the oil situation even harder, as we’d be trying to introduce a whole new concept into the conversation. (Although peak oil is alien enough to people that it requires a lot of explaining; relying on something people think they understand–supply and demand–might turn out to be an easier path to what is effectively the same goal: Increased oil awareness and getting people to take action.)
I’ve actually tried something like this with people in person. Someone starts bitching about the “high” price of gasoline, and I respond with something like, “You think it’s bad now? Wait. Demand from China and the US is booming, and the supply of oil has been flat since 2005. That’s pushed up prices, and they’ll go a lot higher as long as we keep driving more than we need to and consuming more gasoline per mile than is necessary.” (Yes, I’m a freakin’ laugh riot at parties.) The point is, this gets people thinking in concrete terms about the problem, where we’re headed, and how they can Do Something About It, if only from the viewpoint of their personal finances.
Until now, I’ve used this gambit as a way to get people hooked long enough to introduce them to the notion of peak oil. But is that even necessary? Why not just stick with supply and demand, and only get into the production plateau we’ve been on for two years and why if they ask?
Opinions?
From US Wind Power Market Drives Toward New Growth Plateau:
With Texas, California, New York, Minnesota, Colorado and Washington at the forefront of wind project development, the US wind power market is expected to reach a cumulative installed wind capacity of nearly 49,000 MW by 2015, according to a new study by Emerging Energy Research (EER) - a leading advisory and consulting firm tracking emerging technologies in global energy markets.
Wind project development activity has quickly responded to the growing demand for renewable energy in the US, with EER estimating a total US wind project pipeline in excess of 125 GW of projects at various stages of development. With more than US $65 billion forecasted to be invested in additional wind capacity between 2007 and 2015, the US is projected to rank first in the world in cumulative installed wind capacity with approximately 19% of global wind market share by the end of 2015, according to EER’s just-released study.
…
As the US wind market has exploded since 2005, vendor competition in the US wind industry has also intensified, with numerous foreign wind turbine manufacturers making significant investments to build order books with key US customers and to establish a greater manufacturing presence.
Turbine manufacturing investment in the US has grown markedly in the past two years, with aggressive new entrants now vying with US market veterans GE and Vestas for big-name contracts. “Numerous turbine vendors have established manufacturing or turbine assembly facilities in the US since 2005, increasing supply availability to US developers but also putting pressure on each vendor to secure its US component supply chain as vendor execution on existing contracts becomes crucial,” according to Magee.
Note that this article is highlights from a 255-page, $3,750/copy report from a private research firm. I don’t know enough about EER to offer an opinion about their accuracy or independence regarding energy issues.
That caveat aside, I think this projection is far more likely to be on the money than the DOE/EIA’s prediction that US wind power capacity will essentially flatline around 17GW. For the record, US installed wind capacity is just under 12GW as of the end of 1Q2007, and the combined push of federal and state policies within the US will likely keep the wind turbine makers and installers working overtime for many years.
I also want to point out that the US has the opportunity to build out wind power to an astonishing degree, thanks to two factors: First, we have an incredible amount of land in the central part of the country (think: Texas straight north to Canada) with the magic combination of lots of wind and very low population density. Second, we have three coastlines (Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes) with high wind potential and close proximity to large population centers.
Currently, there’s almost no offshore wind power installed in the US, and several of the states in that north-south wind belt are just getting started with wind power. (See the AWEA’s wind map for details.) Clearly, we have more potential than we can tap in the short run. Good, because this whole energy thing is going to be a mess for a long time, and we’ll need all the easily-tapped renewable energy we can get our hands on.
From Energy crisis cannot be solved by renewables, oil chiefs say (emphasis added):
The world is blinding itself to the reality of its energy problems, ignoring the scale of growth in demand from developing countries and placing too much faith in renewable sources of power, according to two leaders of the global energy industry.
The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell today calls for a “reality check”. Writing in The Times, Jeroen van der Veer takes issue with the widespread public opinion that green energy can replace fossil fuels.
…
Instead of a great conversion to wind power and solar power, Mr van der Veer predicts, the world will be forced into greater use of coal and much higher CO2 emissions, “possibly to levels we deem unacceptable”.Alternative energy sources, such as renewables, will not fill the gap, says Mr van der Veer, who forecasts that even with major technological breakthroughs, renewables could account for only 30 per cent of energy supply by the middle of the century.
…
Speaking at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London, Mr Tillerson [CEO of ExxonMobil] pointed to a widespread failure by policymakers to understand the extent to which the aspirations of people in developing countries are fuelling growth in demand for energy.Mr Tillerson said that world energy demand would rise by 45 per cent by 2030, and fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal – were the only energy sources of sufficient size, adaptability and affordability to meet the world’s needs.
…
Mr Tillerson, speaking at Chatham House, expressed doubts about the oil industry’s ability to raise its game significantly without access to the oil reserves of the Opec countries of the Middle East.
It’s extremely difficult to decouple the message from the messenger in this case. We should be highly cautious of any comment from the head of an oil company (and in particular ExxonMobil) regarding renewables, carbon tax policy (see the original article for that part), etc.
In general, I think it’s fair to say that the people who run oil companies tend to grossly underestimate the potential for conservation and alternative energy sources. Still, I can only hope that articles like the one above will help raise the profile of our energy situation among mainstream consumers and voters.
See Global Warming: A Real Solution for a thoughtful, longish article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that presents an enlightened viewpoint.
See An Inconvenient IT Truth for a slide show regarding IT energy use, and how much data centers consume in terms of energy and other resources. (Hint: A lot.)
As I’ve said many times before, expect to see a huge amount of work in this area, including new hardware and software, from open source projects through the largest IT companies.
See Roger Bezdek Sydney Smart Conference keynote address for a video of the recent peak oil presentation by Roger Bezdek (President of Management Information Services, Inc.) in Australia. The video is an 87MB MOV file, but it’s well worth the download. You can also download a copy of the presentation slides in PowerPoint format.
I often mention the value of the energy stats published by the US Dept. of Energy, but I think it would be useful to include links to stats for other countries or regions (like the EU).
Let me start with an easy one, Canada. The relevant organization here is Statistics Canada, and you can find the English version of their quarterly energy publications here. The publications are available free in HTML and PDF formats, or for a fee in printed form.
Please feel free to post similar links for other non-US sources of stats, and I’ll include them on the references page I’m working on.
I also want to revisit something I mentioned the other day. I referred to a paper by James Hansen in a June 19th post (The climate tipping point). Since then, I’ve had a chance to read the paper, and I very highly recommend you grab a copy (follow the link to the prior post) and spend the time to read it. If you’re not a climate scientist I suggest you skim parts of it, as I had to, or you’ll be hopelessly lost in the jargon. But there’s plenty there that anyone who reads this cite can understand, even if most of it will make you want to hide under bed.
From Will France be caught with its plants down?:
But as Europe prepares for a predicted heat wave this summer, the French electrical utility is also preparing for the possibility that its beloved nuclear power system may not be able to cope. And environmentalists warn that’s a sign that nuclear power may not be, as many now argue, a solution to global warming.
“People say that nuclear power is going to solve global warming, but I think we’re going to have to solve global warming if we’re going to have a future for nuclear power,” said David Lochbaum, director for nuclear safety at the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists.
Nuclear power plants rely on large amounts of cool water to operate at a safe temperature. That water is then pumped out at a higher temperature, warming the body of water from which it came.
That doesn’t usually cause any problems if the plant is located next to an ocean or sea. But if, the same as three-quarters of French nuclear generators and many others around the world, the plant is next to a lake or river, the supply of cool water can dry up during a hot spell and the operator faces some hard choices. It can reduce output or shut down the plant, or it can pump extra hot water into an already warm lake or river, and risk raising the water temperature so much that it causes massive environmental damage.
So, in addition to all the concerns about safety and waste management and nuclear material proliferation, we can add concern over water supplies.
Nuclear power just keeps looking better and better. [/snark]
…and leaves some steaming elephant droppings on the way.
See GCC’s article on the new CAFE rules agreed to by the Senate. What a crock.
In particular (quoting GCC, emphasis added):
Increases fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars, SUVs, and trucks up to 10,000 lbs in weight by 10 miles per gallon from model years 2011 to 2020—from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020.
The rules will use attribute-based classes (such as size or weight) determined by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Each class of vehicles—as determined by NHTSA—will be required to meet the new fuel economy standard for that particular class to achieve the fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Each automaker will no longer be required to average the fuel economy for the entire fleet of cars they produce.
From 2011 to 2019, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up to meet the 2020 target of 35 miles per gallon. In 2020, the total average must meet 35 miles per gallon, unless NHTSA determines that the achievement of the 35 miles per gallon standard would not be cost-effective for the nation. The bill defines “cost-effective” to mean that the value to the United States of reduced fuel use from a proposed fuel economy standard is greater than or equal to the cost to the United States of such standard. From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible, and ratchet these standards up at a reasonable rate.
Establishes a credit system and trading program for automakers run by NHTSA. Should an automaker exceed the standards it can sell its credits to another automaker, or bank the credits for up to 5 years. If an automaker cannot meet the standards in a given year, it can purchase credits, use banked credits, or borrow from projected surpluses from future years.
Gee, can anyone here see any way at all in which these requirements could be circumvented or twisted into an ineffective, regulatory pretzel? Anyone? Buehler?
I was surprised initially when I saw that Ted Stevens (a.k.a. Senator Tubes) was the primary author of this amendment. After looking at the details, I find it far more understandable.
And, as someone pointed out in the GCC comments, this opens a very interesting debate about how, exactly, the cost of various actions is calculated. If it’s done purely on a dollar flow basis, with no accounting for externalities, such as the military cost of ensuring a steady flow of oil to the US, then it’s a farce. And who do we think will calculate the cost to the US auto industry of a higher MPG standard, or minimally have a major influence on said calculation? You don’t think it could possibly be (gasp!) the car companies themselves, do you?
Right now, I have to believe that Ford, GM, and Chrysler execs are popping champagne corks and laughing their asses off. They wanted no increase in the CAFE standards, despite the overwhelming need for them, and they very nearly got exactly that.
Yes, I know that this isn’t law yet, and a separate version has to make it through the House and then be reconciled with this one from the Senate, so a lot could change before this collection of words actually becomes the law of the land. But unless a legislative miracle occurs, this bill will be remembered as one of the biggest, most glaring examples of a lost opportunity in recent Congressional history.
I hope the Senators involved get really fat campaign contributions from the car industry. After all, there’s no sense in selling yourself on a street corner to the highest bidder unless you get a good price.
Just what we all need from time to time–a pristine box of snow white sand to play in.
Some video goodies:
From Big Oil Companies Spared Tax Hikes:
Republicans blocked a proposal Thursday to tax the oil industry an additional $29 billion, while the Senate moved closer to an agreement on raising automobile fuel economy for the first time in nearly 20 years.
The tax package was aimed at channeling billions of dollars to subsidize windmills, hybrid cars and other alternative energy resources. But many Republicans said it was too harsh on the oil industry and could lead to less production and higher gasoline prices.
…
The talks were believed to be close to an agreement that would require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, but abandon a provision that would have required 4 percent annual efficiency improvements after that. The automakers had complained vigorously about the 4 percent increase, saying they would be required to meet 52 mpg for cars and SUVs by 2030, a mandate they said they couldn’t meet.
…
The tax changes would have channeled $11 billion over 10 years into development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and power from wind turbines. It provides an additional $18 billion in other tax breaks - from tax credits to clean and renewable energy bonds - to support improvements in energy efficiency, clean coal technology, development of gas-electric hybrid cars that could be plugged into the national power grid and other alternative energy programs.
It would have rescinded a tax break given to oil companies in 2004 that was primarily aimed at helping domestic manufacturing; increased taxes paid under an oil spill liability law; and eliminated existing tax credits involving foreign oil production.
Another measure also would have imposed a new excise tax on oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico to recoup $10.7 billion in royalties the government has been unable to retrieve because of flawed oil leasing contracts issued in 1998-99.
What a freakin’ embarrassment.
Does anyone reading this really think that the oil company tax would have (a) raised the price of gasoline and (2) that that would have been a bad thing?
Does anyone reading this think we’ll still be building and selling POGE (plain old gasoline engine) vehicles in 2030? Or is it more likely that by then we’ll have made the transition to plug-in series hybrids with long battery-only ranges plus EV’s, making the MPG standards we’re arguing over today laughably obsolete?
And finally, does anyone here think that this cowardice and utter refusal to deal with our critical energy situation in a meaningful way will do anything but make the pain of peak oil and global warming that much worse?
In reading this article, I’m reminded of a quote by James Carville, a.k.a The Ragin’ Cajun, and the man who coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!” during the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. The New Yorker ran a profile of Carville which included his feelings about another political insider: “I wouldn’t piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.”
Yep, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the people responsible for this legislative train wreck in the US Senate.
