Fighting peak oil with electric transport....
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-30-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
This post has three parts.
1. Peak oil and increases in the cost of fuels based on oil look to be sooner and more certain than many have thought them to be -- even counting in the slowdown of demand caused by the global recession.
Last week we posted that the Kuwaiti scientists now predict peak oil in 2014. Earlier today I read information that suggests this is close to correct.
Worse, it suggests that the availability of oil will fall and it will begin to cost far more by 10 years or so from now or sooner.
Today, NPR online news had some information from a new book by a writer who has been closely following the oil industry that shows why that is so.
The information in the article is from his book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet by Michael Klare.
The article points out that this author has already said that the oil that it is easy and inexpensive to get and get from safe and politically stable countries is already gone.
So, after acknowledging that the current global recession has lowered the demand for oil, the article quotes him as saying this,
"....while the crisis" (the current global recession & credit cut back) " has eliminated the threat of an immediate energy shortfall, it does not follow that the global struggle will be any less acute in the years to come. In fact, there is good reason to conclude the reverse: that the crisis will only intensify the struggle.
There are a number of reasons to believe that the reduction in competition will be relatively short-lived. First, the depletion of existing oil reserves continues to accelerate rapidly. Second, as a result of the financial crisis, the major energy firms appear to be scaling back their investments in costly new development projects, including alternative energies. Finally, the leading producing countries, fearful of losing their privileged status as a result of the drop in energy prices, seem determined to take steps to extend their control over valuable production and delivery assets.
For years, energy experts have been warning that the world’s biggest oil fields — many of which have been pumping crude for 30 years or more — have been substantially depleted and are on the verge of rapid decline. As indicated in chapter two, just 116 giant fields — all but four of which were discovered more than a quarter of a century ago — account for nearly 50 percent of the daily international oil output. Among those that are now — or will soon be — in decline are some of the world’s largest and most prolific, including Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, Burgan in Kuwait, and Cantarell in Mexico. As recently as 2005, when oil expert Matthew R. Simmons warned that Ghawar and other key fields were on the brink of decline, such pessimistic assessments were widely derided by industry officials, who typically claimed that the fields were still capable of robust production.
But recent developments have tended to confirm the pessimist outlook: In August 2008, for example, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) reported that production at Cantarell had dropped by 36 percent over the previous year — an extraordinary rate of contraction in such a short period of time. Significant declines have also been reported in large fields in the North Sea area and Russia.
In an effort to better gauge the extent of the global loss in output, the IEA in 2007 undertook a comprehensive study of the world’s top 800 producing fields. The results of this investigation — the first of its kind — are included in the agency’s World Energy Outlook 2008. Based on their analysis of data on day-by-day production, the study’s authors concluded that the natural decline rate of major existing fields is not 4 to 5 percent per year as previously thought, but an astonishing 9 percent. At this accelerated pace, existing fields will be pumping out substantially less oil every year, requiring a vast increase in output from whatever new fields are discovered simply to keep the level of global output steady, let alone satisfy any growth in international consumption."
In more direct words, the drop in the reserves in the existing oil fields will soon begin to both cut the overall world output of oil and cause the output that remains to come from locations and techniques that cost more than what we have been paying.
That combination ensures that oil prices will increase strongly even if demand remains low by recent standards.
That means the prices for gasoline and diesel fuel made from this oil will go up.
2. The good news is that the prospects are beginning to look better of having electric cars and plug-in hybrid cars available soon that can operate with as little as 5 to 10 % of the oil we use for powering our all gasoline or all diesel cars now.
Yesterday, Tesla Motors had their initial public offering for stock, issued more shares at a higher price than they earlier expected & then saw their share price bid up by almost 50%.
They earned this in part by doing deals with Diamler-Benz and Toyota. So that means that not only will Tesla provide upscale and technically advanced electric cars, those two larger & world-wide companies will soon be making electric cars or plug-in hybrids using Tesla’s technology in part or even partnering directly with Tesla.
Nissan and General Motors are about to begin delivery of an all electric car and a partly electric car respectively.
Ford and Saab are also close to entering this market too.
And, that’s not all. Coulomb Technologies is developing multiple ways to support building networks of charging stations for electric and plug-in hybrids. They have a large deal with Ford and also are ready to support the Nissan Leaf and are working with Siemens to support an EV (electric vehicle) Siemens is developing.
A company called Better Place is setting up a combination of fast charging stations and electric cars that work with them in several places.
And, Amprius in the Silicon Valley says they have a technology to increase the charge lithium batteries can take and deliver by 40%. If they do and get it into production, that will either increase the range cars can drive using only electricity or lower the cost and weight of their battery packs or both.
And there are also many new advanced technology battery companies as well. These include A123 Systems and Boston Power both in Boston plus the high technology companies in China that venture capitalist, John Doerr says are doing well despite very little coverage here.
3. In addition, we can now make electicity from natural gas with less pollution and possibly more efficiently with fuel cells from Bloom Energy.
Hopefully, we will also switch to cleaner ways to use coal to generate electricity such as making methane with it & using the methane to make electricity with less pollution and possibly more efficiently with fuel cells from Bloom Energy.
We also will soon be able to feed the CO2 from those power plants to algae to make biofuels.
And, even more helpful yet if we can do it, is to:
Build massive amounts of photovoltaic solar installations both in hundreds of thousands of onsite locations and in hundreds of large and medium sized power plants;
Install massive amounts of wind power electicity generation;
And, build several hundred very large solar thermal plants in the Southwest and West part of the United States and all through Mexico.
Conclusion,
The rising real cost of using oil for fuel and the development of electric and plug-in hybrid cars and the development and increased building of clean and cleaner ways to generate electricity mean that it begins to look like we will have a way to power our transportation system that will no longer use oil.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Peak oil may show up this time....
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-23-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
There are three key reasons to suspect that peak oil may be showing up soon.
1. The people who are in a position to know the real reserves of oil in the key countries in the Middle East are the scientists and other energy experts in Kuwait.
Earlier this year they published saying their current estimate is that peak oil will happen in 2014. That’s now less than 4 years from now.
After that, no matter how much the price is bid up, each year there will be less oil and the price will rise in two ways.
As more countries develop economically and population rises, in the near term there will be more demand for oil. So with greater demand and slightly reducing supplies, prices will go up. Before the recent credit crash added to it and caused global economic slowing, our economy had been slowing from this rising demand impacting our current prices since oil was not becoming more available that fast.
Once peak oil hits, that will return even if the recovery from the global recession is weak. And, the price run up of oil will be greater if the recovery has been better.
Second, there are ways of getting more oil but which are not in use now because they cost more than the oil is now selling for. Once peak oil hits and the effects begin, this will initially slow the increase in prices due to the small increase in oil this will make available. But, it will also increase the cost of the oil itself which will then be passed along to the users after that.
2. Despite the recession, both economic growth in developing countries and growth in population worldwide will continue. That will gradually increase the demand for energy for transport which is now provided mostly by oil.
3. Despite some promising beginnings, electric cars; plug in hybrids; truly widespread increases in energy efficiency, electricity from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind, will not yet be ready for prime time for us to switch to fast enough to compensate for the slowing effect of peak oil. Nor do we yet have cost or energy efficient production of biofuels in real quantity.
This means that if we fail to dramatically accelerate those alternatives to oil, within the next 5 to 10 years, we will have serious slowing of the economy due to very steep increases in the cost of oil.
My hope is that the efforts now being made to get the United States congress to pass helpful legislation work well enough to get us moving fast enough to minimize the impact -- by both dramatically increasing the rate at which we are building these alternatives and by slightly increasing the costs of gasoline and diesel now to help fund that and to incentivized people to choose those alternatives.
The concept is a bit like the shock absorbing cans of water now on some freeways so that cars that are about to run into large concrete bridge supports will have significant but survivable crashes instead of the almost always fatal results of the crashes 20 times worse from running into the bridge supports without that initial slowing.
Certainly causing expensive cosmetic damage to your car if it runs into the shock absorbing cans of water is no fun to experience. But when you survive unhurt, you can overcome the problem. Conversely, without those shock absorbing cans of water, if you collide directly with the concrete bridge supports, you are dead and the game is lost.
Do we slow the use of oil now by making gasoline 25 to 75 cents a gallon more expensive and go to fairly decent supplies of $6 to $8 dollars a gallon gasoline later because there are beginning to be large scale alternatives available?
Or, do we decide we can’t afford to do that just now and then get to experience gasoline costing twice that much, $12 to $16 dollars a gallon or more -- and only half as much is available?
Will our now functioning economy and food delivery systems survive that hit? They might not.
That to me is the key question.
It’s why I think the people are fools who argue for permanently postponing California’s AB32 or for not supporting a National energy bill that gradually limits the use of carbon fuels with some near term cost increases involved.
Unfortunately, a recent poll found that the majority of Americans have heard we need to switch away from oil but also are unwilling to support paying a bit more now for gasoline to speed up that process.
Ultimately, unless those Americans and their representatives learn WHY we are in desperate trouble unless we do just that, we may not act fast enough to dodge the disastrous effects of peak oil once it arrives.
Over the next few weeks and months, we will see how it goes. But if it goes badly -- and it might, may God be merciful on us. We will need it.
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-23-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
There are three key reasons to suspect that peak oil may be showing up soon.
1. The people who are in a position to know the real reserves of oil in the key countries in the Middle East are the scientists and other energy experts in Kuwait.
Earlier this year they published saying their current estimate is that peak oil will happen in 2014. That’s now less than 4 years from now.
After that, no matter how much the price is bid up, each year there will be less oil and the price will rise in two ways.
As more countries develop economically and population rises, in the near term there will be more demand for oil. So with greater demand and slightly reducing supplies, prices will go up. Before the recent credit crash added to it and caused global economic slowing, our economy had been slowing from this rising demand impacting our current prices since oil was not becoming more available that fast.
Once peak oil hits, that will return even if the recovery from the global recession is weak. And, the price run up of oil will be greater if the recovery has been better.
Second, there are ways of getting more oil but which are not in use now because they cost more than the oil is now selling for. Once peak oil hits and the effects begin, this will initially slow the increase in prices due to the small increase in oil this will make available. But, it will also increase the cost of the oil itself which will then be passed along to the users after that.
2. Despite the recession, both economic growth in developing countries and growth in population worldwide will continue. That will gradually increase the demand for energy for transport which is now provided mostly by oil.
3. Despite some promising beginnings, electric cars; plug in hybrids; truly widespread increases in energy efficiency, electricity from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind, will not yet be ready for prime time for us to switch to fast enough to compensate for the slowing effect of peak oil. Nor do we yet have cost or energy efficient production of biofuels in real quantity.
This means that if we fail to dramatically accelerate those alternatives to oil, within the next 5 to 10 years, we will have serious slowing of the economy due to very steep increases in the cost of oil.
My hope is that the efforts now being made to get the United States congress to pass helpful legislation work well enough to get us moving fast enough to minimize the impact -- by both dramatically increasing the rate at which we are building these alternatives and by slightly increasing the costs of gasoline and diesel now to help fund that and to incentivized people to choose those alternatives.
The concept is a bit like the shock absorbing cans of water now on some freeways so that cars that are about to run into large concrete bridge supports will have significant but survivable crashes instead of the almost always fatal results of the crashes 20 times worse from running into the bridge supports without that initial slowing.
Certainly causing expensive cosmetic damage to your car if it runs into the shock absorbing cans of water is no fun to experience. But when you survive unhurt, you can overcome the problem. Conversely, without those shock absorbing cans of water, if you collide directly with the concrete bridge supports, you are dead and the game is lost.
Do we slow the use of oil now by making gasoline 25 to 75 cents a gallon more expensive and go to fairly decent supplies of $6 to $8 dollars a gallon gasoline later because there are beginning to be large scale alternatives available?
Or, do we decide we can’t afford to do that just now and then get to experience gasoline costing twice that much, $12 to $16 dollars a gallon or more -- and only half as much is available?
Will our now functioning economy and food delivery systems survive that hit? They might not.
That to me is the key question.
It’s why I think the people are fools who argue for permanently postponing California’s AB32 or for not supporting a National energy bill that gradually limits the use of carbon fuels with some near term cost increases involved.
Unfortunately, a recent poll found that the majority of Americans have heard we need to switch away from oil but also are unwilling to support paying a bit more now for gasoline to speed up that process.
Ultimately, unless those Americans and their representatives learn WHY we are in desperate trouble unless we do just that, we may not act fast enough to dodge the disastrous effects of peak oil once it arrives.
Over the next few weeks and months, we will see how it goes. But if it goes badly -- and it might, may God be merciful on us. We will need it.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Let’s act on clean energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-16-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Today, most of the critical comments on President Obama’s speech last night badly missed the mark.
They revealed the small mindedness of the critics more than the actual faults of the President.
Given the Gulf Oil Spill situation, he clearly needed to take several kinds of action.
It would be nice if he could have started earlier and done more on each of the key areas he listed. But, given his lack of God-like power and the other demands on his time, I think he is doing a decent job.
He laid out the exact things he should be doing and showed that in each case, he is indeed taking action to be sure those things get done.
He’s chosen experienced and appropriate people to work in each of the areas and set them to work.
He is taking the time to go see the situation first hand besides which shows in the strength of the effort he has begun to restore the health of the Gulf and the people who depend on it for their income.
The only weak point was his last and in many ways his most important one.
Let’s act on clean energy!
We have the ability to reduce our use of petroleum by 60 to 90 % with the technologies now developed. Had we done that already, BP would not have had the incentive to do deep water offshore drilling or have felt the necessity to cut corners to go faster despite the grave risks involved.
So, perhaps the most effective long term way to ensure only well managed, careful, and safe offshore drilling is done or is no longer needed at all, is to do just that.
The problem is that the Senate has many members who either are virtual employees of the oil companies who are taking a dangerously short sighted view of the situation OR those who want very badly to increase jobs and boost the economy and are scared to death of anything that might harm that.
Because of the oil spill and how horrible it has turned out to be, the influence of the oil companies and their lobbying money is temporarily low.
But those Senators, including some conservative Democrats, who are scared to do anything that might slow the economy, are still holding the energy bill hostage in fear that it will have that effect.
I think the President’s speech would have been far stronger as hopefully will his future policy, if he had added these two points.
1. We are running out of oil yet our economy now depends on it and we are NOT prepared enough to avoid economic collapse when it does.
So, I think the President needs to make this point about the initial costs of the change over to clean energy. Well managed companies will have the employees they want and need to keep during a severe recession cut their hours or pay a bit so that they can keep their jobs and will be in place when it turns around. In the same way, it is justified to have energy costs go up a bit now so that later they won’t go up horribly or have us run out of energy completely. Yes. It’s not great now to do this. But it will be SO much better later if we do, it’s irresponsible to refuse to do it.
2. On the other hand, we have a lot of people out of work and a lot of people very worried. In addition, we have other things slowing our economy. So, it’s also irresponsible to add costs to our economy without making every intelligent effort to reduce the impact of the switch over in energy or even make it zero if we can.
I am disappointed that the Obama administration has not made a major effort to create programs that will do just that.
And, I’m not just disappointed in the Senators who have done nothing in this area besides saying we can’t act on energy, I’m a bit angry about it.
This is exactly the area where a win win compromise can be reached in the Senate.
Tom Campbell just lost the Republican nomination to the Senate here in California. The Republicans here wanted a more partly line only candidate more than they wanted one who could win in November.
The good news is that Tom Campbell said that we should postpone acting on Clean energy while the economy is so bad; and now he won’t be in office supporting that view.
But, he WAS the best Republican candidate and does think well on topics where he has expertise.
He may have come up with the solution to how to get a bill through congress that will both help us switch from oil to clean energy AND minimize how much doing so will impact the economy.
When I emailed me about energy, he replied with this.:
“"The key is to lower business taxes by exactly the amount of revenue that would be generated by a carbon tax. The carbon tax would apply to the large users of fuels: largely, electrical generation and automobiles.
Economists overwhelmingly agree that the reduction in greenhouse gases proposed under a cap-and-trade program can be achieved, more efficiently, with less government supervision, less cost, and less interference with productive operations, by imposing a tax on the carbon content of the fuel used.
If we offset that increase in tax, dollar for dollar, by a lowering of the business tax, we actually favor companies that produce less amounts of greenhouse gases. The overall cost of doing business in our state would not change; but we would have achieved good environmental results. We also would have given an incentive to the creation of technology to reduce greenhouse gases, which is a real future area for California's business future.
We can find a way to achieve both good environmental results and good economic growth results...."
I think this is an example of the kind of bi-partisan work that can lead to an energy bill that can pass the congress.
I’d like to see more data on his assertion that carbon taxes have the advantages over cap & trade that he says they do. But it IS clear that you get better control of what the costs will be and scripting a gradual phase in program using carbon taxes.
AND, whether or not we use carbon taxes or a cap & trade – which has worked well in some applications, his idea of a compensating tax break to minimize the slowing on the economy and INCREASE the incentive to build more renewable energy is brilliant and has so far been missing from the debate.
Had President Obama included this last set of ideas AND given a list of the people he has recruited in a bi-partisan group to work on this area to improve it, I think the impact of his speech & his Presidency would have been far greater.
The good news is that it’s not too late to do so now.
I hope he does.
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-16-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Today, most of the critical comments on President Obama’s speech last night badly missed the mark.
They revealed the small mindedness of the critics more than the actual faults of the President.
Given the Gulf Oil Spill situation, he clearly needed to take several kinds of action.
It would be nice if he could have started earlier and done more on each of the key areas he listed. But, given his lack of God-like power and the other demands on his time, I think he is doing a decent job.
He laid out the exact things he should be doing and showed that in each case, he is indeed taking action to be sure those things get done.
He’s chosen experienced and appropriate people to work in each of the areas and set them to work.
He is taking the time to go see the situation first hand besides which shows in the strength of the effort he has begun to restore the health of the Gulf and the people who depend on it for their income.
The only weak point was his last and in many ways his most important one.
Let’s act on clean energy!
We have the ability to reduce our use of petroleum by 60 to 90 % with the technologies now developed. Had we done that already, BP would not have had the incentive to do deep water offshore drilling or have felt the necessity to cut corners to go faster despite the grave risks involved.
So, perhaps the most effective long term way to ensure only well managed, careful, and safe offshore drilling is done or is no longer needed at all, is to do just that.
The problem is that the Senate has many members who either are virtual employees of the oil companies who are taking a dangerously short sighted view of the situation OR those who want very badly to increase jobs and boost the economy and are scared to death of anything that might harm that.
Because of the oil spill and how horrible it has turned out to be, the influence of the oil companies and their lobbying money is temporarily low.
But those Senators, including some conservative Democrats, who are scared to do anything that might slow the economy, are still holding the energy bill hostage in fear that it will have that effect.
I think the President’s speech would have been far stronger as hopefully will his future policy, if he had added these two points.
1. We are running out of oil yet our economy now depends on it and we are NOT prepared enough to avoid economic collapse when it does.
So, I think the President needs to make this point about the initial costs of the change over to clean energy. Well managed companies will have the employees they want and need to keep during a severe recession cut their hours or pay a bit so that they can keep their jobs and will be in place when it turns around. In the same way, it is justified to have energy costs go up a bit now so that later they won’t go up horribly or have us run out of energy completely. Yes. It’s not great now to do this. But it will be SO much better later if we do, it’s irresponsible to refuse to do it.
2. On the other hand, we have a lot of people out of work and a lot of people very worried. In addition, we have other things slowing our economy. So, it’s also irresponsible to add costs to our economy without making every intelligent effort to reduce the impact of the switch over in energy or even make it zero if we can.
I am disappointed that the Obama administration has not made a major effort to create programs that will do just that.
And, I’m not just disappointed in the Senators who have done nothing in this area besides saying we can’t act on energy, I’m a bit angry about it.
This is exactly the area where a win win compromise can be reached in the Senate.
Tom Campbell just lost the Republican nomination to the Senate here in California. The Republicans here wanted a more partly line only candidate more than they wanted one who could win in November.
The good news is that Tom Campbell said that we should postpone acting on Clean energy while the economy is so bad; and now he won’t be in office supporting that view.
But, he WAS the best Republican candidate and does think well on topics where he has expertise.
He may have come up with the solution to how to get a bill through congress that will both help us switch from oil to clean energy AND minimize how much doing so will impact the economy.
When I emailed me about energy, he replied with this.:
“"The key is to lower business taxes by exactly the amount of revenue that would be generated by a carbon tax. The carbon tax would apply to the large users of fuels: largely, electrical generation and automobiles.
Economists overwhelmingly agree that the reduction in greenhouse gases proposed under a cap-and-trade program can be achieved, more efficiently, with less government supervision, less cost, and less interference with productive operations, by imposing a tax on the carbon content of the fuel used.
If we offset that increase in tax, dollar for dollar, by a lowering of the business tax, we actually favor companies that produce less amounts of greenhouse gases. The overall cost of doing business in our state would not change; but we would have achieved good environmental results. We also would have given an incentive to the creation of technology to reduce greenhouse gases, which is a real future area for California's business future.
We can find a way to achieve both good environmental results and good economic growth results...."
I think this is an example of the kind of bi-partisan work that can lead to an energy bill that can pass the congress.
I’d like to see more data on his assertion that carbon taxes have the advantages over cap & trade that he says they do. But it IS clear that you get better control of what the costs will be and scripting a gradual phase in program using carbon taxes.
AND, whether or not we use carbon taxes or a cap & trade – which has worked well in some applications, his idea of a compensating tax break to minimize the slowing on the economy and INCREASE the incentive to build more renewable energy is brilliant and has so far been missing from the debate.
Had President Obama included this last set of ideas AND given a list of the people he has recruited in a bi-partisan group to work on this area to improve it, I think the impact of his speech & his Presidency would have been far greater.
The good news is that it’s not too late to do so now.
I hope he does.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Two pieces of good news on clean energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-9-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Today, most personal transport and most shipping of products depends heavily on oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel.
We may be about to experience peak oil as knowledgeable Kuwaiti scientists recently estimated (2014 was their estimate.) And, we may have already used up the Earth’s capacity to absorb CO2 & to keep a climate humans can live in well.
So, we are likely risking severe economic downturns or even a virtual collapse of our economy and severe weather or food shortages or both if we do not switch to using all electric and plug-in hybrid cars that mostly run on electricity.
And, close to 100 % of that electicity needs to come clean energy sources only -- from renewable sources with perhaps some increased nuclear power if it can be managed safely. Lastly, 100 % reliable safety management of dangerous energy and power sources has taken a very serious hit to its credibility lately. So, if we are wise, the vast majority of that clean energy will be from renewable sources only.
So, if definite progress shows up in building a network of electric and plug-in hybrid cars and renewable sources of the electricity needed, that clearly is very valuable good news indeed.
In the last few days, we have had one of each!
1. Coulomb Technologies of Campbell, California announced that it will build 4600 charging stations for such vehicles in nine initial regions across the United States. And, they will partner with FORD to make these available to the electric and plug-in hybrid cars Ford is planning to build and market within the next 2 or 3 years.
This news combined with the earlier news of a similar partnership between Toyota and the maker of all electric cars and electric car technology and components, Tesla Motors, means that within five years we will have the foundation in place for beginning to switch to mostly all electric and plug-in hybrid cars.
2. The major sources of renewable energy are wind, solar thermal, and solar photovoltaic. Of those sources, the one that can be installed most widely and at or very near where the electricity will be used is solar photovoltaic.
So, any news of how such systems can be installed more quickly, with less labor, and for less money is significant and positive.
And, since many if not most of the locations where we might install solar photovoltaic systems will have mixed sun and shade, any technology that can increase the electricity produced under such conditions, is also significant and positive.
It was recently announced that Enphase Energy of Petaluma, California has just such a product.
So, it’s also no surprise that they were recently able to raise $63 million to begin to build it and sell it more widely.
Photovoltaic cells produce DC or one-way direct current. The grid most people are connected to is AC or alternating current since this form of electricity can easily be changed in voltage and suffers less transmission losses. So the lights and electric devices in our homes and businesses are set up to run on AC current. For these reasons, solar photovoltaic systems need inverters that the solar cells connect to so that their DC power can be converted to AC.
But there are two problems with what we have been using.
The larger inverters now in use collect from many solar cells where some are in the shade and some in direct sunlight. This winds up reducing the output that the total set of solar cells generates to less than the total of the electricity they produce.
Second, these inverters are large enough that it requires several men to install each one.
Enphase Energy solves both problems by making inverters small enough that virtually every solar cell only supplies one inverter. This has been tested to improve the net output of the solar photovoltaic system by 5 to 25% over what it would have been with the larger inverters now in use.
In addition, each inverter is small enough that one installer can install them. A team with several men in it is now longer required to install the inverters.
So these announcements mean that we are getting closer to when the new energy and transport system we need is available, affordable, and in increasing use.
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-9-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Today, most personal transport and most shipping of products depends heavily on oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel.
We may be about to experience peak oil as knowledgeable Kuwaiti scientists recently estimated (2014 was their estimate.) And, we may have already used up the Earth’s capacity to absorb CO2 & to keep a climate humans can live in well.
So, we are likely risking severe economic downturns or even a virtual collapse of our economy and severe weather or food shortages or both if we do not switch to using all electric and plug-in hybrid cars that mostly run on electricity.
And, close to 100 % of that electicity needs to come clean energy sources only -- from renewable sources with perhaps some increased nuclear power if it can be managed safely. Lastly, 100 % reliable safety management of dangerous energy and power sources has taken a very serious hit to its credibility lately. So, if we are wise, the vast majority of that clean energy will be from renewable sources only.
So, if definite progress shows up in building a network of electric and plug-in hybrid cars and renewable sources of the electricity needed, that clearly is very valuable good news indeed.
In the last few days, we have had one of each!
1. Coulomb Technologies of Campbell, California announced that it will build 4600 charging stations for such vehicles in nine initial regions across the United States. And, they will partner with FORD to make these available to the electric and plug-in hybrid cars Ford is planning to build and market within the next 2 or 3 years.
This news combined with the earlier news of a similar partnership between Toyota and the maker of all electric cars and electric car technology and components, Tesla Motors, means that within five years we will have the foundation in place for beginning to switch to mostly all electric and plug-in hybrid cars.
2. The major sources of renewable energy are wind, solar thermal, and solar photovoltaic. Of those sources, the one that can be installed most widely and at or very near where the electricity will be used is solar photovoltaic.
So, any news of how such systems can be installed more quickly, with less labor, and for less money is significant and positive.
And, since many if not most of the locations where we might install solar photovoltaic systems will have mixed sun and shade, any technology that can increase the electricity produced under such conditions, is also significant and positive.
It was recently announced that Enphase Energy of Petaluma, California has just such a product.
So, it’s also no surprise that they were recently able to raise $63 million to begin to build it and sell it more widely.
Photovoltaic cells produce DC or one-way direct current. The grid most people are connected to is AC or alternating current since this form of electricity can easily be changed in voltage and suffers less transmission losses. So the lights and electric devices in our homes and businesses are set up to run on AC current. For these reasons, solar photovoltaic systems need inverters that the solar cells connect to so that their DC power can be converted to AC.
But there are two problems with what we have been using.
The larger inverters now in use collect from many solar cells where some are in the shade and some in direct sunlight. This winds up reducing the output that the total set of solar cells generates to less than the total of the electricity they produce.
Second, these inverters are large enough that it requires several men to install each one.
Enphase Energy solves both problems by making inverters small enough that virtually every solar cell only supplies one inverter. This has been tested to improve the net output of the solar photovoltaic system by 5 to 25% over what it would have been with the larger inverters now in use.
In addition, each inverter is small enough that one installer can install them. A team with several men in it is now longer required to install the inverters.
So these announcements mean that we are getting closer to when the new energy and transport system we need is available, affordable, and in increasing use.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Some Republicans support clean energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-2-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
For many reasons depending on the people involved from responding emotionally to name calling whether or not it’s based on facts to legitimate concerns about specific policies, the political pendulum is swinging now in favor of the Republicans. The recession is still more in effect than most people like. And, though it’s often misplaced, the people in power are often blamed for such things and associated with them.
So more Republicans are on their way to being elected. Many of them believe that global warming is a myth, that environmental regulations only increase costs for businesses and should be scaled back, and that only green economy initiatives that increase jobs are OK.
These things could have rather unfortunate consequences for the clean energy programs we not only need but are already 40 years behind when we should have begun them.
In addition to the dangerous things that global warming will cause and is beginning to cause and will get worse if we fail to act, we are at the point where oil will begin to be less available and cost far more. Yet, an astonishingly large and massive part of our economy relies now only on oil.
When these price rises begin between 4 and 10 years from now, our economy will begin to shrink or even break down in places. We can only cope with this if we already have some viable alternatives in place on a large scale and are very rapidly building more.
Given the chance that the new Republican legislators might derail this from happening, their arrival on the scene is scary news indeed.
But, aren’t there any Republicans who know these facts? Mercifully there are I found out today.
They may be motivated more by wanting to breathe clean air and to protect our national security than the two concerns I express here of preventing excessive global warming or worse and preventing economic collapse from massive run ups in oil prices but they do exist.
I found this today on the Clean Energy Network website.:
“This press release came out yesterday, 6-1-2010
"Bipartisan TV Ads Promote American Power Act
June 1, 2010
Republicans for Environmental Protection and Truman National Security Project today launched a $3 million advertising campaign in 16 states calling on Congress to "stop bickering" and pass bipartisan American clean energy legislation. The first ad, called "Boot," is sponsored jointly by the conservative- and progressive-leaning organizations, and is notable for its aggressive support for an "all-of-the-above" solution to America's energy, environmental, and security challenges.
The ad is available online here:
The American Power Act, authored by Democrat John Kerry and independent Joe Lieberman, with help from Republican Lindsey Graham, embraces ideas from across the political spectrum. The proposal includes a strict limit on carbon pollution, more use of nuclear power and domestic production, and a boost to renewable energy, among other provisions.
"Boot" is the first of a series of advertisements expected to run in targeted states and nationwide. The multimillion-dollar campaign also includes online ads, direct mail, and field activities. The buy includes broadcast TV in Washington, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Maine, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Oregon, Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida, and New Hampshire.
In launching the joint campaign, David Jenkins, vice president for government and political affairs for Republicans for Environmental Protection, said: "The energy-related challenges and opportunities facing our nation require balanced solutions, not political gamesmanship. Republican lawmakers need to show that they recognize that and rise to the occasion to support this much-needed legislation."
"America's continued reliance on energy from hostile nations is a threat to national security," said Jonathan Powers, chief operating officer of the Truman National Security Project. "Oil money is ending up in the hands of America's most dangerous enemies, funding terrorism around the world. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue – this is an issue for all Americans. It's time for reasoned compromise and fast action – not partisanship and bickering."
Republicans for Environmental Protection is a national grassroots organization dedicated to resurrecting the Republican Party's great conservation tradition and promoting the original conservative philosophy that requires responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
The Truman National Security Project is a national security leadership institute, the nation's only organization that recruits, trains, and positions a new generation of progressives across America to lead on national security.
The campaign is part of an ongoing partnership between Republicans for Environmental Protection, Environmental Defense Action Fund, and the Truman National Security Project to promote strong clean and air and climate legislation."
Today's post: Wednesday, 6-2-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
For many reasons depending on the people involved from responding emotionally to name calling whether or not it’s based on facts to legitimate concerns about specific policies, the political pendulum is swinging now in favor of the Republicans. The recession is still more in effect than most people like. And, though it’s often misplaced, the people in power are often blamed for such things and associated with them.
So more Republicans are on their way to being elected. Many of them believe that global warming is a myth, that environmental regulations only increase costs for businesses and should be scaled back, and that only green economy initiatives that increase jobs are OK.
These things could have rather unfortunate consequences for the clean energy programs we not only need but are already 40 years behind when we should have begun them.
In addition to the dangerous things that global warming will cause and is beginning to cause and will get worse if we fail to act, we are at the point where oil will begin to be less available and cost far more. Yet, an astonishingly large and massive part of our economy relies now only on oil.
When these price rises begin between 4 and 10 years from now, our economy will begin to shrink or even break down in places. We can only cope with this if we already have some viable alternatives in place on a large scale and are very rapidly building more.
Given the chance that the new Republican legislators might derail this from happening, their arrival on the scene is scary news indeed.
But, aren’t there any Republicans who know these facts? Mercifully there are I found out today.
They may be motivated more by wanting to breathe clean air and to protect our national security than the two concerns I express here of preventing excessive global warming or worse and preventing economic collapse from massive run ups in oil prices but they do exist.
I found this today on the Clean Energy Network website.:
“This press release came out yesterday, 6-1-2010
"Bipartisan TV Ads Promote American Power Act
June 1, 2010
Republicans for Environmental Protection and Truman National Security Project today launched a $3 million advertising campaign in 16 states calling on Congress to "stop bickering" and pass bipartisan American clean energy legislation. The first ad, called "Boot," is sponsored jointly by the conservative- and progressive-leaning organizations, and is notable for its aggressive support for an "all-of-the-above" solution to America's energy, environmental, and security challenges.
The ad is available online here:
The American Power Act, authored by Democrat John Kerry and independent Joe Lieberman, with help from Republican Lindsey Graham, embraces ideas from across the political spectrum. The proposal includes a strict limit on carbon pollution, more use of nuclear power and domestic production, and a boost to renewable energy, among other provisions.
"Boot" is the first of a series of advertisements expected to run in targeted states and nationwide. The multimillion-dollar campaign also includes online ads, direct mail, and field activities. The buy includes broadcast TV in Washington, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Maine, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Oregon, Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida, and New Hampshire.
In launching the joint campaign, David Jenkins, vice president for government and political affairs for Republicans for Environmental Protection, said: "The energy-related challenges and opportunities facing our nation require balanced solutions, not political gamesmanship. Republican lawmakers need to show that they recognize that and rise to the occasion to support this much-needed legislation."
"America's continued reliance on energy from hostile nations is a threat to national security," said Jonathan Powers, chief operating officer of the Truman National Security Project. "Oil money is ending up in the hands of America's most dangerous enemies, funding terrorism around the world. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue – this is an issue for all Americans. It's time for reasoned compromise and fast action – not partisanship and bickering."
Republicans for Environmental Protection is a national grassroots organization dedicated to resurrecting the Republican Party's great conservation tradition and promoting the original conservative philosophy that requires responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
The Truman National Security Project is a national security leadership institute, the nation's only organization that recruits, trains, and positions a new generation of progressives across America to lead on national security.
The campaign is part of an ongoing partnership between Republicans for Environmental Protection, Environmental Defense Action Fund, and the Truman National Security Project to promote strong clean and air and climate legislation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)