Sign of the Times: "California company offers workers 'hot deal' for purchasing a hybrid"
Not only do they save you money but they save you money and you can save money while saving money (notice AEman didn't resort to mentioning saving the planet or any other such wussy notion). Click 'n read from the Detroit News today.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:53 PM
 
You Wanna Start Something ??
Do these things for they are doable and matter. Begin doing them now:
1. When you need a car, buy a hybrid. And not the Lamborghini hyrbrid that'll be out in 3 years that generates 1500 hp, but one of the ones that's nice, smart and fuel efficient. See previous post for ideas. This saves lots of money.
2. Conserve at home. Insulate. Keep thermostat down in winter and up in summer. Use energy efficient appliances and compact fluorescent lights. This saves lots of money.
3. Get smart and active. Read AEman's blog and follow the links where they take you. Talk to others ... you'd be surprised how many people are already tuned into this frequency and have been waiting for the broadcast to begin. Well, it's beginning, and you can be on the show if you want. This will not save you money but may boost your ego and may make you more attractive to the opposite sex. Or whatever sex you wish to attract.
4. Begin to scope out your legislators at all levels ... selectmen, mayors, attorneys general, state reps and senators, the reps and senators on the hill, the big guy and his cabinet. Few if any of these folks will act intelligently on AE until they get red hot pokers of compelling reason shoved way up their asses. And held there. Prepare your pokers. This might be actually quite nasty, though pleasurable as well in its own way. This is likely the most important thing you can do. Understand that if you are a US Senator reading this you might find this offensive ... or threatening. Sorry, but I think if you're honest with yourself you'll agree that it's true.
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:45 PM
Great Hybrid Site for Yous to Peruse
You'll be a-wanting to expend the 1/100,000th of a horsepower required to get to the hybridCARS.com site as soon as possible. It's very well designed, highly informational, and seems to contain zero bullshit. How much is AEman being paid to gush thusly? A gentleman never tells ...
posted by Andy Bochman at 4:06 PM
Nuclear Energy in the US: A Strange Love Indeed
Well, AEman wouldn’t actually say love, not in 2004, though it might have been love a long time ago. And if you refer to the previous post on what China is up to with pebble reactors, it may be love again. But lately it hasn't even been "like." For many of the more environmentally-oriented in the US and especially Europe, nuclear power is essentially the energy anti-christ.
AEman though, is little inclined to weigh theological issues in his analysis. Rather, he is solely interested in nuclear power as a new power energy source ... even if its misapplication could cause trouble, even it its mismanagement could cause environmental problems or loss of life. It's all about risk management and selecting the best mix of benefits and risks. All of the old power sources cause significant environmental damage and lead directly and indirectly to loss of life. Arguably some of the new energy approaches don't have such dire side-effects and that's bloody fanstastic. But until they're grown up and ready to take center stage, it's going to be a continuing excercise in compromise and balancing risks and rewards.
Today, the AEman test visits itself upon nuclear power as an energy source that’s at once both old and new. Old in that it’s been around for about fifty years and is widely deployed, both in the US as well as in the rest of the world. New because a lot has happened in the last 20 or so years, both to the technology as well as to the world.
Though few new plants have been built since the seventies, the 103 currently operational U.S. nuclear power plants produce about 20% of U.S. electricity. In Europe (specifically the EU zone) that number is 35%, with France topping the list with 78% of its electricity derived from nuclear power plants.
China and India have started ten or so new plants in the last several years and are building another ten as fast as they can. Compared with the US and the EU countries, both are really just getting started. On the other hand, the US and EU have been holding steady for so long that China and India will likely whistle past them before too long.
Worldwide, nuclear power accounts for 15 percent of global electricity output and it hasn’t budged a hell of a lot in the past 20 years. That’s going to increase, although the recent post on coal use (Coal Case) shows coal plant construction increasing rapidly in India, China and the US where there’s no shortage of the stuff.
Why are nukes interesting again after falling out of favor with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Reason number one is that they don’t require carbon-based fossil fuels. The uranium which they require is plentiful and would easily sustain a massive US and global plant build out. And while the US and European programs have been frozen, science has marched on with new plant designs that have substantially improved the safety and efficiency of nuclear power.
Before the test commences, a few fun nuclear power facts from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) follow:
- The average electricity production cost in 2003 for nuclear energy was 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 1.80 cents, for oil 5.53 cents, and for gas 5.77 cents
- The energy in one uranium fuel pellet—the size of the tip of your little finger—is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.
- Uranium is a relatively abundant element that occurs naturally in the earth's crust. Uranium oxide is more abundant than gold and silver, and about as common as tin.
- In 2002, 16 countries produced over 99 percent of the world's total uranium production. Canada's and Australia's uranium mines account for over 50 percent.
The 3-part AEman test considers economic, geopolitical and environmental factors.
Economics: Good
Cost to mine, refine, transport fuel, and then dispose of the spent fuel and decommission the plant. A 2003 report from the University of Chicago economics department funded by the DOE compared the power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the US. Various nuclear options were covered and ranged from 4.3 to 5.0 c/KWh, while coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/KWh and natural gas 3.5 - 4.5 c/KWh, varying significantly depending on the price of natural gas. It’s important to note that while these figures show nuclear almost a full cent higher in total costs per KWh generated, they do not reflect the substantial recent price increases in natural gas nor the anticipated CO2 emissions costs expected to be tacked on to coal power generators in the near future.
Geopolitics: Good
Nothing like oil. No one’s killing each other over access to uranium mines in Australia and Canada so the US isn’t spending billions in protection money nor are our troops in harm’s way because of the nuclear power industry. Of course, nuke plants do bring with them a uniquely powerful threat: that of generation and proliferation of materials that could be used to build nuclear fission bombs. The US obviously feels comfortable with its own use of nuclear materials as fuel in the geopolitical context and has learned to be comfortable with nuclear plants run by our “friends” in Western Europe and Asia. We are somewhat less comfortable with the idea of nuclear plants generating power for potential adversaries like China, but if they already have a nuclear arsenal, then fretting’s not going to do much good … or bad. It’s their use in non-nuclear states that gets us agitated … and it should. Looks like we’ll be welcoming Iran to the club soon, like it or more likely, NOT.
Environmental: Good
From a greenhouse gas emissions perspective – nukes score swell – as nuke plants, when they’re running properly, release little but steam. They can mess up local aquatic environments when they release too much hot water into too small a body of water, but AEman considers this a secondary risk factor at best, and one that can be overcome through good design and new technologies. Like geopolitics, though, the initial very upbeat assessment comes with a caveat. I the case of nuclear power, it’s nuclear waste of course. Where to responsibly put this dangerous stuff: Yukka mountain and other alternative sites? Or is it new tech to break it down into less dangerous forms? And going forward, what about the inherently melt-down proof ball approach of the pebble reactor design (see previous post).
Summary
Neither the cheapest nor the safest, though from a certain perspective the cleanest, nuclear power (especially new design nukes) stands ready to help us buy time while waiting for newer AE technologies to mature. Let’s figure out once and for all what we’re going to do with the glowing leftovers (fruit cakes?) and continue to work on keeping proliferation to an absolute minimum.
New nuke plants are ideal for making electricity for residential and commercial use as well as hydrogen for the transportation sector. See today’s NY Times article - Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies - it reports a breakthrough on using nuclear power to create hydrogen much more efficiently than ever before possible. So, nukes make hydrogen. Sort of like blue states and red states ... a new power lovechild born of Dr. Strangelove and Yule Gibbons.
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:42 PM
Wired on China's Safe Nuclear "Hydrogen Machines"
Pebble Reactor design 
AEman strongly recommends reading Spenser Reiss's article "Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom" in Wired this month. Here's an excerpt that describes the fantastic modular, meltdown proof new design that's being fielded in China as we eat Turkey.
How a Pebble-bed Reactor Works:
- Hot Rocks: Thousands of billiard ball-sized fuel pebbles power the reactor. The balls are coated with impermeable silicon carbide and packed with 15,000 tiny uranium dioxide flecks, each of which is encased in its own silicon carbide shell.
- Recycling Center: The fuel pebbles cycle through the reactor vessel from top to bottom, heating helium. Pebbles that are still potent return to the top; spent and damaged ones collect at the bottom.
- Spin Zone: The hot gas flows into the water-cooled conversion unit and pushes the turbine, generating electricity. It then cycles back to the reactor vessel to be reheated.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:06 PM
Union of Concerned Scientists added to AEman links
"Union" - wage/benefit leverage, or marriage; "of" - innocent participle; "Concerned" - this can only be a good thing vs. aloof or disaffected; "Scientists" - more than one scientist ... strength in numbers. And they're local to AEman too, with their HQ near MIT. Here's what the AE-focused UCS guys say they do:
We examine the benefits and costs of the country's energy use, and promote
energy solutions that are sustainable both environmentally and
economically. Currently, the electricity industry is undergoing rapid
change, including partial deregulation. Because electricity generation is a
major producer of emissions that cause acid rain, smog, and global warming, this
restructuring creates risks, as well as opportunities, for the environment and
for public health. We're working in Washington, D.C., and in state capitols
across the country to ensure that electricity restructuring includes
strong provisions for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and pollution
reduction. We have also, for more than two decades, been working to reduce
the risks from nuclear power.
These guys need to be visited regularly as they are up to some very good things.
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:05 PM
Red States & Blue States Agree on This:
Waiting for their legislators - most wedded intimately to entrenched old power interests - to take action ahead of the curve on AE is a formula for boredom ... and failure. Well, an entire state just got off its ass and bypassed the deadwood. Below find an excerpt culled from the NY Times this morning:
Colorado voters said much the same thing when they
approved, over the vehement objections of most energy companies, a proposal
mandating that 10 percent of the state's electricity must come from wind and
solar power by 2015. The law, Amendment 37, makes Colorado the 18th state
with an environmentally friendly energy standard, but the first one to have
bypassed the Legislature and put the rule into place through referendum. An
energy bill similar to the one the voters approved was defeated by Colorado's
Legislature three times in the last three years. "Because it's a
conservative Western state with a strong fossil-fuel industry, as well as the
first one passed by a popular referendum, Colorado represents something of a
breakthrough," said Alan Nogee, the energy program director at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit research and advocacy group based in
Cambridge, Mass.
Nice work.
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:07 AM
Religion and AE
It’s Sunday night and that always puts AEman into an introspective, reflective, spiritual frame of mind. Well, no it doesn’t. But let’s just say for the sake of argument it did this time. Religion’s been in the news a heck of a lot lately, and usually for not very life-affirming reasons. AEman assumes most of his readers keep themselves up to speed on current events including the ways religion and in particular, religious fundamentalism is shaping our world. It plays such as large part in the geopolitical scene, it would be obscene to ignore it now.
Really, religion and AE break down into another supply and demand exercise. Why don’t we unpack it, just for giggles? To the extent religion gets extreme, or fundamental if you will, it’s about making life on Earth suck so bad that one can’t wait to get to the afterlife.
You know, like orthodox Jews not being able to enjoy the bacon in eggs and bacon, like devout Christians feeling bashful and guilty on the beach in Nice, like Islam’s five prayer calls a day giving way to the 70 or so perpetually renewing virgins. Not sure what that does for Islamic women, unless in their minds' eyes they see their reward coming from Chippendales. But it does seem to have captured the imaginations of many young male Muslims. Side bar - lexicographers have recently discovered what may have been a whopper of a mistake: the original textual precursor to the Koran appears to have said “raisins” not “virgins”. Imagine the surprise of the car bomber thusly rewarded! I mean, raisons are good for you … and they can be so plump and juicy … but AEman does digress …
On the demand side, if the globe went fundamental overnight it would be an energy demand godsend (well, except for the gas-guzzling, monster-home-building, spare no expense Christian fundamentalists in the good ole USA). Almost immediately, one could expect sales to shift thusly:
- In -- prayer mats, robes, beard grooming accessories, and certain very select books;
- Out -- most air conditioning, SUVs (and for that matter most cars), jet skis, HDTV plasma, surround sound home theater systems, etc.
Christian fundies are another case altogether, though. They get to have their afterlife cake in heaven and eat well on Earth too. Their white-gowned, shuffleboard-centric afterlives are a tad more staid than you-know-who’s perpetually renewing you-know-what’s. So they have to give prizes in the present, and that means a life replete with huge homes, aircraft carrier-sized cars and when financially feasible, SubZero appliances.
Enough of that wretched excess, let’s get on to supply, where excess is not such a problem. AE’s going to come on strong because of science, innovation and the nads it will take to pull us decisively out of the status-quo malaise in which we currently wallow. Count now, wilt thou, the number of very religious folk leading the AE charge in the scientific community. Finished? In fact, it seems likely that religion and the very religious may play almost no role in leading the charge, though it is hoped that the merely somewhat religious will not hinder the good work that must be done soon. If God made the Earth and we humans too, surely he doesn’t want us to ruin it and kill ourselves. I mean, that’s His prerogative, right? AEman signs out now saying He’ll be pissed if we steal his thunder, and pleased if we help sustain our world for many future generations to follow. I know, I know, this is heresy. G’night.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:59 PM
Brain Gym Email of the Day - Nov 20
This just in from C. Davis in Texas:
Regarding the tide turbine approach, what if you were to:
- add a wind turbine
- add photovoltaic
- use abandoned oil rigs as the basis for your structure
- capture the economies of putting multiple energy production sources on one structure
- capture the economies of putting multiple production sources at a common node on the grid
This would let you capitalize on the fact that each source might be at peak production at different times: tidal movement versus windy versus sunny, thus smoothing out the power production curve (compensating for the intermittency of each method) optimizing power flow through a given transmission capacity that you've paid for. It would have to be a special place that accommodates the three conditions, but because of the economies the layering offers, it might not have to be as special.
posted by Andy Bochman at 1:06 PM
AEman cited these guys in previous post/rant on oil before checking them out. Just checked them out. They check out ... peer review and all. If you really want to Czech out, however, I'd recommend Kundera.
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:11 AM
AEman has said that the primary focus of his blog is to highlight requirements for … and advances in new power tech. But sometimes statements and data about the old guard sources, upon which we are still completely dependent, come out that really jolt him. And of course, it’s his duty to share these precious moments with you, the concerned citizen and beloved reader. Remember, all alarms are not necessarily sounded by alarmists.
So, on to oil in late 2004 then. Black gold, Texas tea, 10W40. Hey, wonder if that’s the same W … ? AEman’s not sure he’s got a clear picture of what’s driving the recent volatility and price increases (to a new high a few weeks ago of $56/barrel.) Seems like the Iraq war must be a major factor. But what else … hurricanes affecting refining operations down south … political problems in Nigeria and Venezuala … the huge Yukos oil company in Russia essentially being shut down by Putin … BP announcing that it cooked the books and has significantly fewer proven reserves than it lead investors to believe for years.
What about America’s fiddling-while-Rome-burns approach to burgeoning energy and climate change concerns: 3 SUVs in every monster garage? Next up, the Chevy Star Destroyer SUV with quad hemi engines. With over 2,000 horsepower, it’ll snap your head back right quick, doing zero to 80 mph in less than a second … not unlike a top fuel dragster. Or the Dodge Ram-jet pickup, which literally blows the fucking doors off the competition by adding afterburners, inspired by the Batmobile and the powerful Mach 5. And finally, be on the lookout next year for the Hummer H3 Maximus. Early in 2005 the new congress will pass legislation that will enable fielding of the first street-legal vehicle that’s allowed to occupy two full lanes at once. On the positive side, the Maximus uses hybrid design as part of its propulsion system. However, it is the first passenger vehicle that gets worse gas mileage than the M1A2 Abrahms … about 2 gallons per mile highway, 1.5 gallons per mile city (that improvement attributable to the hybrid design).
Whoa there now AEman … easy boy. Get back on topic, would you? OK, he’s back.
Are the large oil co’s adding to the madness? Murray Duffin, writing a couple of days ago in EnergyPulse (AEman will have to figure out whether the EnergyPulse lit is trustworthy, but assuming Duffin and EP are not totally on crack, here’s the money quote:
You will hear that oil company profits are up 90% and that is true. What
you will not hear is that oil company profits have been dismal for several
years, which is one of the reasons that no refinery capacity has been
added. Even after this nice rise, profits are not excessive. No, I
am not a spokesman for the oil industry. AEman’ll take his word for it. Actually, no he won’t … will check Mr. Duffin out carefully. But he does have a winning way about him. Consider the following … let’s go out with a bang not a whimper. This man builds a foundation which makes almost every type of new transportation AE technology already more cost effective than gas/oil today.
If you had to pay at the pump to maintain the military we keep in the middle east
to keep the supply lanes open, (not counting the cost of the war in Iraq),
instead of having it buried in the defense budget, gasoline would be over $7 a
gallon today. AEman will show you the math once he finds it – else will write a retraction. Hmm – re-traction. Maybe we can get some of that in the H4. “The first wheel bends the pavement back, the second wheel peels it back a bit further, giving the other 12 wheels unprecedented hyper traction, delivering the shit-kicking, street-eating, turbine power you’ve come to expect from Hummer.” Alas, what a bummer is a Hummer.
posted by Andy Bochman at 11:32 PM
Coal Case
Wherein AEman will attempt to articulate a short but coherent case in support of broader US use of coal power. First of all, let's admit that coal used to be for choo choos and is today best suited for power plants and steel production, not to power cars and light trucks. Second, let us note that the WSJ had an article yesterday titled: "Global Surge in Use of Coal Alters Energy Equation" which among other things said:
A world-wide surge in the mining and use of coal is helping offset some of the economic strains of rising oil demand and marks an important shift in energy consumption with long-term consequences for the global energy equation and the environment. The trend is especially notable in the two countries that are the biggest new sources of global energy demand: China and India. These nations have enormous coal reserves but not nearly enough oil and gas. By some measures, world-wide coal consumption has been rising faster than the use of any other source of energy, including crude oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity and nuclear power. Last year, world coal consumption rose 6.9%, compared with 2.1% for oil, according to BP PLC, the global energy company.
AEman's three-pronged checklist for the soundness of a particular power tech includes economics, geopolitics and environment aspects. With these lenses in mind, coal scores as follows:
- Economics - nothing to talk about. On the face of it, keeping it simple, coal is freaking cheap and easy to transport and work with. It doesn't blow up. It's like a rock.
- Geopolitics - people are not shooting each other over coal. I suppose they could, but they just aren't. Religion, oil, politics - those are worth dying for, but so far, not coal.
- Environmental - Oops, coal falls down big time here both domestically and globally. AEman will investigate "clean coal" in a future post but guesses that that phrase relies on "big lie" rhetoric. Call it clean and so it is. So it is not.
If India, China and the US attempt to circumvent oil problems by increasing coal's contribution to the total energy equation we may be appeased in the short term while truly well-fucked in the mid/long. Coal is the poster child fuel for production of CO2 and other nasty greenhouse products. If it can really be cleaned up via tech, then God bless it. Otherwise, we might want to avoid the easy short term solution that trades on the futures of our kids and grandkids. If it's coal vs. oil for power plants, though, methinks I'd choose coal which requires much less blood.
posted by Andy Bochman at 3:06 PM
Fools (Not) Rushing In
Bill Paul wrote in the Motley Fool last week that though investers might be tempted to get in on some of the early stage AE companies with the price of oil so high, they might want to keep their powder dry. Dotcom-chastened Paul, now invests in companies that are already making money big time and his recommendations seem to AEman to require near-zero risk. And you know how the risk reward thing goes.
Still, here's a couple of points from Paul mapping big AE ventures to already large and successful public co's.
- "In the transporation sector, the recent surge in oil prices has clearly moved hybrids out of the niche category and into the mainstream. The two car manufacturers that clearly are best positioned to take advantage of hybrid technology are Honda (NYSE: HMC) and Toyota (NYSE: TM). Whether and when Detroit catches up is anybody's guess."
- "Meanwhile, environmental dilettantes in the U.S. battle over conducting wind power projects in places such as Martha's Vineyard because they wouldn't be pretty to look at, while wind power is revving up in other countries. Besides global warming concerns, wind power is getting a big boost from cost-lowering technological advances. With Congress recently renewing the industry's tax credits, U.S. development should soon pick up, too. While General Electric (NYSE: GE) is a wind power player, one doesn't consider buying GE for its alternative energy prospects. Rather, just as with hybrid cars, you have to look abroad. In my opinion, two big European companies that have U.S.-listed shares -- Denmark's Vestas (OTC BB: VWSYF) and Spain's Gamesa (OTC BB: GCTAF) -- are the industry's best-positioned players."
A little tame for AEman's tastes but he takes the point that conservative investors can now participate in the AE market. Who knows what the bleeding-edge maniacs will do?
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:39 PM
Do'st A Mighty (Solar) Wind Approacheth?
DARPA and venture cap-funded Nanosolar in Silcon Valley seems to be building up a head of steam as it attempts to substantially adance the state of solar energy. Assuming the claims on their site are not too exaggerated, they certainly are kicking the ass of current solar approaches. As follows:
Current Crystalline Silicon versus Nanosolar's printed solar cells - Key Differences - Production: wafer processing vs. printing
- Sustained Throughput (fpm): 1-2 vs. 100
- Energy Payback Time: 4 Years vs. 3 weeks
- Product Weight (per sqm): 5-10 kg vs. 500 g
- Bendability: brittle vs. flexible
In the hallowed AE technology pantheon, solar's been cool yet (economically) remote, not unlike the god Apollo. Wind and water-driven turbine deployments have scaled far more quickly as they've been about 1/10th the price per kilowatt hour. Yet some sense solar's appeal and potential, and the Nanosolar folks are doing their damndest to accelerate the practicality of the production of solar, as well as easing deployment by making lighter and more flexible stuff. If these guys continue in this direction without hitting a huge roadblock, AEman forsees solar on every roof, cooking the chicken in every pot.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:20 AM
Is this cool or what? Sometimes words fail AEman ... or he, them. Anyway, see if this concept art doesn't get you more than a little aroused (AEman is consciously not noticing the fairly phallic configuration). Beautiful, sleek, and nary a landlubber senator can see it. Here's the UK-based co. that's working in it: MCT .
posted by Andy Bochman at 1:29 AM
Picking on George
"You said you wouldn't harp on GWB; said what would be the point?" AEman knows ... he's sorry. Won't happen again. It's probably Laura that's making him do all this crazy stuff. Behind every great man, there's a manipulative former librarian. God only knows what she whispers into his ears when he's sleeping. That poor man.
posted by Andy Bochman at 11:58 PM
The Burning Bush: Kyoto Still No Go for This Guy
Our man in Washington continues to give AEman the heebee jeebees on climate change. Four more years of office looks like it's going to mean four more years of US emissions moving farther and farther from the Kyoto targets which it played a major role in setting. Guess he's a man of his principals and he's not going to change his mind for anything trivial like, you know, the Earth, the economy, his children and grandchildren, etc. AEman appreciates the advantage the US has with a man who doesn't make mistakes at the helm. Don't know how we made it through all those previous flawed presidents. Jesus Christ almighty.
CNN's article today "Climate Report Leaves US Policy Unchanged" provides this summary:
In March 2001 Bush broke his campaign promise to regulate carbon emissions and
withdrew the United States from the Kyoto treaty, which seeks to slow global
warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Gore signed the treaty in 1997, but it never was ratified by the Republican-controlled Senate. Bush said it also should have included developing countries such as China and India, which are major polluters. Achieving the treaty's target will be difficult without participation by the United States, which accounted for 36 percent of the industrialized nations' carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. Russia accounted for 17 percent. Critics say Bush's opposition is ironic because the treaty was modeled after the market-based U.S. program for cutting acid rain created in 1990 by Bush's father and often pointed to by the current administration as a success story. "Indeed, it would be very, very surprising if this instrument were not used by the people who invented it," Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the Kenya-based U.N. Environment Program, said in an interview. Annie Petsonk, a lawyer for New York-based Environmental Defense, a nonprofit group that says it is dedicated to protecting the environment, said the United States will be left isolated on the biggest environmental challenge of the century. She said the White House estimates of Kyoto's costs do not appear to include the cost savings from trading pollution rights. "For business, it's quite serious because it means that the global carbon market is going to move, and U.S. companies are going to be left out of that market," Petsonk said. She helped
shape the Kyoto treaty and the first President Bush's climate policy as a Justice Department lawyer. By signing on to the treaty, industrialized nations commit themselves to cutting their collective emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels.
So there you have it sports fans. It's not blue states and red states; it's countries with heads not up asses and country with head way way up. As was said in a particularly dour segment in the film Trainspotting, "doesn't it make you prooouuuud to be Scottish!" AEman, true patriot he, doesn't feel so hot about his lot in this deal.
posted by Andy Bochman at 11:39 PM
Army Hard Corps on Cape Wind Goodness
This just in: that radical group of do-gooding tree huggers (NOT), the US Army Corps of Engineers just issued its impact statement and Cape Wind came out smelling like roses. This Boston Globe article provides some great highlights. Here is a summary of 9 of the Army Corps of Engineers' key findings sure to set the Wind-haters teeth to gnashing: - Cape Wind will reduce energy costs in several ways including offsetting the burning of expensive fossil fuels, reducing New England’s dependence on natural gas, and reducing the cost of compliance with the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS) for Massachusetts electricity consumers.
- The project will create 600 – 1,000 new construction jobs and 154 new permanent jobs.
- The direct, indirect and induced effects of Cape Wind … will result in annual permanent increases of $21.8 million in economic output; $10.2 million in value added; and, nearly $7 million in labor income.
- The project will produce air quality improvements and greenhouse gas offsets of over one million tons annually.
- There will be minimal or no adverse impacts on fishing. [In fact], the presence of the turbines may enhance recreational fishing for certain species such as Atlantic cod, black sea bass, and scup.
- It is expected that the construction and operation of Cape Wind will not substantially adversely impact general commercial/recreational vessel navigation or ferry operations.
- The FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to air Navigation.
- The estimated small number of birds killed by wind turbines is unlikely to cause bird population declines.
- People onshore will not hear the … wind turbines.
So ready or not, here they come! Well, at least until the President, Senate and Congress, led by John Warner and Ted Kennedy, can figure out a way to litigate another delay. Maybe AEman can help. Has anyone considered that the air might get bruised? Or that the soothing rotation of the sleek blades might produce an unintended aphrodisiac effect … wouldn’t want that in or near Nantucket now would we? Now AEman learns that Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney opposes the project on aesthetic grounds. Since when is the Mass gov (or any politician for that matter) concerned with aesthetics over job creation, economic improvement, environmental protection and energy security? This just in from a caller from Uranus: she suggested they try a Romulan cloaking device to mitigate the aesthetic issues. AEman notes that Romulan technology has advanced quite a bit since the days of James T. Kirk, so it's affordable now too.
Back to reality: like computers, wind turbines gets better every year. So the megawatt ratings of each tower goes up as opponents try to shut it down and cumulative output of 120 or so towers soars still higher. Plainly stated – this impact report is just completely fantastic news for (almost) everyone.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:25 PM
Double Take: World Energy Outlook 2004 Bitchslaps
The soothing language of large NGOs attempts to lull AEman and others into complacency. But no, a true perusal (vocab builder: that's a close read, not a quick scan) reveals multiple cases of major league mischief for the US economy and the global environment. In no particular order I give you:
"Well over two-thirds of the projected increase in emissions will come from developing countries" Great news. This means that the US has to move fast to develop and deploy new AE tech at home, but also that it's a race against the clock to get new AE products sold globally. Other than feasibility issues, do you know anybody who's got a freakin problem with this? Save the planet, make big money. Hello! Which part of get our asses in gear don't you understand? Developing countries, where production and demand are set to increase most, will require about half of global energy investment. This means, according to the IEA's estimate of $550 billion per year total, that the developing world market size for new power tech is north of $275 billion per year through 2030. Or maybe we'd be just as happy selling old power tech and bringing on climate change for our kids and grandkids all the faster. These days seven generations are hard to imagine. The ... trends [described in the IEA] Reference Scenario, are ... not unalterable. More vigorous government action could steer the world onto a markedly different energy path. [The 2004 Outlook study] presents an Alternative Scenario, which analyses, for the first time, the global impact of environmental and energy-security policies that countries around the world are already considering, as well as the effects of faster deployment of energy-efficient technologies. This is the beginning of goodness. Not the whole enchilada, mind you, not close. But sort of like this blog, which is really just a forum for conjuring an AE "alternative scenario". Wonder what made 2004 so different from previous years that it prompted this radical action from the IEA? The IEA calls on all parties to work together to devise and implement a universally-recognised, transparent, consistent and comprehensive data-reporting system for oil and gas reserves. The reliability of reserves data reported by oil companies has been called into severe question. Doubts about the accuracy of reserve estimates – an issue highlighted in this Outlook – could undermine investor confidence and slow investment.
This is Holy Shit #1. Thanks to BP's bombshell mea culpa earlier this year, many are wondering just how much oil really is in the ground. It's funny that the IEA seems confident in parts of its report that we've got plenty of supply to keep growing through 2030, and at the same time questions the very foundations on which its forecasts are based. As international trade expands, risks will grow of a supply disruption at the critical chokepoints through which oil must flow. A total of 26 million barrels currently pass through the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca every day. Traffic through these and other vital channels will more than double over the projection period.
Holy Shit #2 brings this somewhat verbose post to a typically happy close. Global confidence in the current energy supply infrastructure is poised to plummet with just one significant terrorist event in the Persian Gulf or Asia. Alarm bells going off for old energy yet? Even without the gift of prophecy you can feel one of these coming, can't you? This is very bad juju indeed. Let's work to quickly bring about the day when nothing of importance to us travels regularly through such trecherous terrain.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:36 PM
IEA's Publishes "World Energy Outlook 2004"
The International Energy Agency released its yearly appraisal of the state of global energy affairs a couple of weeks ago. You can read the 10-page summary gratis or shell out ~ $150 for the full report.
AEman's short take is that the IEA is a bit more sanguine about oil reserves than many other folks, saying they think we can continue to experience increases in supply that match the rapid increases in demand for about thirty more years. The big caveat they attach to that, however, is the question of whether the necessary exploration and infrastructure investments (approx $16 trillion) will be made in the most volatile regions in what promises to be an increasingly insecure world.
You know though, that AEman isn't too interesting in talking about oil - he's just an excitable boy for new (aka sustainable) energy sources. So here's the IEA money quote on what they call the "alternate scenario", which means the unlikely future wherein normally idiotic, knuckle dragging governments and the oil industrial complex members don't wait till the last drop of crude is gone and/or the climate warms up enough to make SUVs submersible underwater vehicles. Otherwise, it's Captain Nemo here we come!:
It is clear from our analysis that achieving a truly sustainable energy system will call for technological breakthroughs that radically alter how we produce and use energy. The government actions envisioned in our Alternative Scenario could slow markedly carbon-dioxide emissions, but they could not reduce them significantly using existing technology. Carbon capture and storage technologies, which are not taken into account in either the
Reference or the Alternative Scenario, hold out the tantalising prospect of using
fossil fuels in a carbon-free way. Advanced nuclear-reactor designs or breakthrough renewable technologies could one day help free us from our dependence on fossil fuels. This is unlikely to happen within the timeframe of our analysis. The pace of technology development and deployment in these and other areas is the key to making the global energy system more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable in the long term. But
consumers will have to be willing to pay the full cost of energy – including environmental costs – before these technologies can become competitive. Governments must decide today to accelerate this process.
That last line concerns me ... "goverments must decide today". I mean, I'd be happy if it happened, but who's kidding who? No offense, but did you ever see "Waiting for Godot"? He never shows up. That's not acceptable theater at this point.
posted by Andy Bochman at 9:08 PM
Rememberence of Things Not Passed: Bush's First Term Energy Plan
He's nothing if not bold. Though bold isn't quite the right word. How about ballsy? As in clearly supporting what appear to be mid 20th century policies 50 years later and not seeming to worry about being exposed as an anachronistic hack ... a wanton huckster for the oil power-industrial complex. Is AEman (with some vestigial circumspection still in place) being too harsh? Me thinks not. OK - evidence. You say, put your money where your maw is, deranged new energy wonk. Here goes then.
To review, in 2002 or thereabout here are some highlights of what what then and now President GWB proposed for energy policy. Please note I have not selectively edited out favorable stuff. Some of this makes sense - most is a wack job.
On the PRODUCTION side of things, here are some of his main initiatives:
- Open 8% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and part of that state's National Petroleum Reserve to exploration. Includes $1.2 billion in lease payments from the land to fund research in renewable energy sources.
- Ease permit process for refinery expansion and construction.
- Speed license procedures for hydroelectric dams and geothermal plants.
- Order the Interior Department to consider "economic incentives for environmentally sound" offshore oil and gas drilling, such as royalty reductions.
- Order the Environmental Protection Agency to review a patchwork of regional gasoline formula standards to assess whether they contribute to regional shortages of gasoline.
- Order the Interior and Commerce departments to review current policies to determine if rules should be eased for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and coastal zone.
- Order the Transportation Department to review fuel economy standards for vehicles to see whether they can be tightened "without negatively impacting the U.S. automotive industry."
- Expedite a study now underway of impediments to oil and gas exploration on federal lands. The study was included in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act signed into law by President Clinton, and required the Interior and Energy Departments to compile an inventory of onshore oil and gas reserves.
- Promote the construction of 38,000 miles of new natural gas pipelines
AEman hears "blah blah blah study impediments to oil and gas exploration blah blah without negatively impacting the [pre-Cambrian era] U.S. automotive industry blah" and is filled with nostalgia for a time when oil was everywhere, terrorists were not, and the ecosystem was an infinite sink for all our industrial sins. Alas, nostalgia sucks and we live here and now though Bush crafts energy policy for Norman Rockwell's America. Let's move on to CONSERVATION ... a dirty word to some ... you'd think more conservatives would like to conserve ... funny that. Perhaps its origins are French? - Give $4 billion in tax credits for purchase of high-mileage, hybrid gas-electric vehicles.
- Provide $1 billion in tax benefits and regulatory relief for co-generation plants, which produce both heat and electricity.
- Expand federal Energy Star program, which designates energy-efficient appliances and buildings, to include not only businesses but also schools, homes and hospitals.
- Ambiguous $10 billion dedicated to energy efficiency over next decade - however, unclear that this money will be spent on demand-side efficiency measures.
This is all good, eh no? But it pales in scope compared with the production incentives for the oil power gang. I mean, it's like pissing in the wind at best. AEman suspects this is a Rovian square filling exercise, nothing more. It's the end of the world as we know it, and Bush feels fine.
Finally, it's time for AEman's favorite flavor - NEW POWER (aka renewable energy) stuff. Let's see if GWB hits this one out of the park for balance: - Provide tax credits to encourage development of energy plants that use organic waste, or biomass.
- Continue tax credits for wind energy generation.
- Give tax credit of up to $2000 for homeowners who purchase solar panels.
Is that all there is? Surely you must be joking. AEman sadly/madly reports this is it. Let's see what Second Term Bush can do for an encore. There's only room for improvement, right? Right???!!!
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:41 PM
Bush is Back: The Perfect [Energy] Storm
You asked for it … you got it. AEman doesn’t want to overestimate the impact any one man can have on our world … he doesn’t want to sound alarmist. Zen quandry: can one sound an alarm without being an alarmist? Think so. Part of me , the Kirk side, would say it this way: “we’re fucked”. Another part, the Mr. Spock component, might hold forth as follows: “our life support systems are in increasing jeapordy, Captain.” And Scotty would get the last word: “She can’t take any more!”
Easy now big guy – get yourself together. What’s so "perfect" about this situation with W still on the throne? Well, try this on for size:
Geopolitical - Looks like Iraq will continue on its current course for the foreseeable future … the long haul:
- Insurgency, recurrent disruption of and continual constraint on Iraqi oil production
- Same or more US troops, same or fewer coalition troops
- Continued strain on relations with former allies, continued deterioration of relations with middle eastern countries
- No serious attempts to transform the transportation sector mean CAFÉ auto efficiency standards continue to stagnate. SUVs continue to walk the earth unimpeded – so protecting oil fields only grows in importance over time
Economy – Resources that could be spent on lots of things … balancing budgets, modernizing infrastructure, investing in new technologies and business models, will continue to be sucked into the black hole of Iraq:
- Hundreds of billions of dollars more going to Iraq
- Tax cuts and growing deficits leave US fewer options
- High and volatile oil prices roil already-jittery energy and capital markets
- High oil prices dampen the US economic recovery as consumers spend a higher % of formerly discretionary income at the pump and heating their homes
Environmental – Ouch. Goodnight Irene. It won’t be “the Day after Tomorrow”, but it might be the “Day after the Day after Tomorrow.” So: - Au revoir Kyoto or similar; hello CO2 in ever increasing volume
- US auto industry greenlight to business as usual
- US carbon-based energy industry samo samo.
- Pronounced leadership void on moving the nation to cleaner, sustainable forms of energy
- Threat of significant and accelerating climate change just jumped a few notches
So there you have it. AEman said he wouldn’t criticize Bush much if he stayed in office and that he would repeatedly kick Kerry’s ass on AE if he won. Just had to release a little steam on this day after. AE will continue as a largely guerilla movement during this administration. Final question for you: where will you be in 2008?
posted by Andy Bochman at 1:33 PM
Nov 2: On the Election ...
It's 10:40 PM EST and it's still up in the air. If Bush wins, AEman remains a subsersive undergroud operation. I don't expect much of the man or his cabinet in terms of new power energy policy. We'll keep advancing the technology and business case nevertheless, but won't spend much time Bush bashing. I mean, what's the point?
But if Kerry prevails, however, AEman will attempt to regularly kick his ass for four years. Hold him accountable on his previous pro-AE positions. Because he might be good, AEman will demand he be very good and will piss and moan when he isn't.
Infantile? Perhaps. Spastic? More than a little. But that's just the way it's going to be around here, like it or leave it. Now, back to the boob tube, blogs and bourbon.
posted by Andy Bochman at 10:35 PM
Oil Endgame 4: Halving the Gas & Conclusion
This is it for the first round of Oil Endgame analysis. The fourth pillar Lovins & crew identified as essential to bringing US energy use in line by 2025 or so is about knocking down natural gas consumption by cutting out the most inefficient of current usage practices. As they found:
Nearly all peak period electricity is made from natural gas—so inefficiently
that each percent of peak-load reduction saves two percent of total U.S. gas
use. Proven and profitable electric-efficiency and load-management methods
can save one-fourth of projected 2025 natural-gas demand at about a tenth of
today’s gas price. Sounds sane, right? Obvious also? That's what gets you about this stuff. A layperson might assume that market forces would squeeze out inefficiences so we must have a super efficient system that rewards continual improvement. My experience is that the opposite is true -- the market rewards short-term intertia and inefficiency.
Now AEman doesn't enjoy spending too much time on oil & old energy -- he likes to keep his eyes trained on the new stuff. But understanding the status quo is essential to building a baseline for comparison against which the new stuff is judged. The energy status quo is so entrenched, it's hard to believe. It would take a big player or a major upheaval in DC to begin to move us in a decidedly more intelligent direction. What would that be like ... well, something like this:
Using oil efficiently and displacing it with cheaper conventional substitutes could meet 80% of forecasted 2025 oil imports. The rest is less than what efficiency will capture soon after 2025. Domestic supply alternatives could even displace that last 20% plus, if desired, the forecasted domestic oil output. Making America oil-free within a few decades is thus both practical and profitable. Who wouldn't want this ... More people than you think. Hey maybe you're one of them. If so, get the hell off of this blog !!!
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:53 PM
Oil Endgame 3: Biofuels to the Rescue?
In 2004, the U.S. consumes approximately 20 million gallons of gasoline per day and this is expected to climb to nearly 30 million gallons per day by 2025 or so. If other aspects of the Oil Endgame plan were implemented successfully, oil use might hold steady or even decline over time. Hence, biofuels could deliver a significant, though not huge, percentage of total US requirements.
[Just five years ago] new methods of converting cellulose- and lignin-rich (woody) materials into liquid fuels, e.g. using genetically engineered bacteria and enzymes, were just emerging. [Today] even newer state of the art technologies now permit biofuels by 2025 to provide 4.3 million barrels/day of crude-oil equivalent at under $35/barrel (equivalent to $.75/gallon of gasoline).
So somewhere between 10 and 20% of gasoline might be grown from crops ... many of which might go help reduce erosion and sequester carbon. And the report goes on to describe multiple benefits to farmers and the agriculture industry. Of course, this doesn't mean shit (and animal waste products and offal, by the way, are a potentially important part of the equation) if we are not simultaneously moving aggressively on convervation and other alternative energy sources. The scientists are clearly doing their job moving the technology forward; the policy makers need to pull their proverbial heads out and craft policy that helps get this industry out of its infancy.
posted by Andy Bochman at 7:53 PM
|
