Good & bad news for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-10-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Good & bad news for Renewable Energy
1. Due to the defeat of Proposition 23 in California, we will now see a good faith effort to put AB32 into practice. To the extent that this succeeds in creating new jobs, causing more renewable energy generation to be built, and cutting CO2 emissions without slowing the rest of California’s economy, this will provide a model for other states and for the nation.
It may not happen soon. But at some point, oil prices will again run up enough to slow the economy. And, we will begin to see more harm from global warming here in the United States.
When either of those happen, let alone both as I think likely, the country will follow California’s lead.
2. Even people who voted for leaders who say they think global warming is not happening or not caused by burning fossil fuels like to save energy and have more new jobs locally.
Such people also are fond of saving money personally. And, most people like useful new technology and products that contain it.
Clean energy advocates need to throw strong support to such programs because even these new leaders and the people who voted for them will support them.
3. President Obama suggested recently the new congress might be able to agree on and pass improved renewable energy standards, increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas, increasing domestic production of electric cars, and building more nuclear power plants.
I give this hopeful suggestion a mixed review.
1. Improved renewable energy standards would be welcome and are extremely desirable; but I think he may be too optimistic – maybe far too optimistic. But even some progress in this area, even if just a little bit at first, would help. So, adding that to something that will fly on its own that has stronger support might work.
He might well have better luck though with improving the energy efficiency standards for buildings and products that use energy –
and for programs that create jobs by helping businesses that help do this make money and hire new people and use existing technologies and new ones to make much more energy-efficient products.
He might get backing for creating jobs to retrofit to more efficient technologies and products and to insulate and heat proof buildings to help them use less energy.
People want more new jobs and help saving money. So these efforts might work.
2. Increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas has a shot. It would help us use less imported oil which would get the backing of conservatives and Republicans who see that as increasing our national security and a way to send less money out of the country when our domestic economy could use some help. Even better, the oil companies led by Exxon and Chevron will be on board. They have seen this coming and have invested heavily in increasing their ability to supply natural gas and make money doing it.
This also has clean energy and environmental value. It would help wean us from using oil before its price spikes or it simply runs out. And, it would generate less air pollution than burning coal, particularly if it’s used to run more efficient and dramatically less polluting fuel cells such as those already made commercially by Bloom Energy.
3. Increasing domestic production of electric cars also has a shot. The car makers are already onboard and are setting up to make both plug-in hybrids and all electric cars. Since this is happening in the rest of the world too, notably in Japan and Germany, doing more of it here, will help create US jobs that would otherwise be lost.
And, even when the electricity used is from burning coal, less CO2 is generated than would be by powering cars of the same weight with oil.
But, even better, as we generate more electricity from sources other than coal and oil from photovoltaic and thermal solar and wind to fuel cells using natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear, such cars give us a real shot at breaking our addiction to oil before it’s too late.
And, having more of such cars built here saves or create jobs here -- which for SURE has universal support.
4. Even conservative Republicans will find that with the recent Gulf oil spill that more offshore drilling may not fly, do quite often support building more nuclear power.
So that might work also. It has worked well in France.
But it does have some safety issues due to terrorism here.
And unless we switch to breeder reactors from use the uranium and then try to figure out where to put the radioactive waste method -- that we have been using, we will run short of uranium, have to transport these wastes with the terror risk that poses, and have it be more of a short term solution only.
That said, more nuclear that creates electricity as needed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus far more electricity from renewable sources that vary from day to day and hour to hour would create a viable replacement for burning coal to make electricity.
5. He did not speak of it. But a program for coal producing states to help them switch to a cleaner way of making electricity from it instead of simply abandoning it would get very enthusiastic support from those states.
And, like increasing our use of natural gas, doing so would get support from conservatives who want to increase our independence from imported oil and to stop sending billions of dollars a week out of the United States.
Coal can be use to make gas that can be used in fuel cells to make electricity and burning it also produces less air and water pollution than burning coal directly. Coal has already been used to make gasoline. The technology exists. And, last but far from least, when gas from coal is used to make electricity, the CO2 created can be fed to algae to make biofuels.
The next two years or more may be quite challenging. But good things are likely to happen more and more in California. And nationally, some productive things might yet come out of the next congress.
Showing posts with label energy legislation that might get enacted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy legislation that might get enacted. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Bipartisan progress in the Senate....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-21-2009
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.
Supporting federal legislation would help. That’s why the news I got last week that begins to make that much more likely was such welcome news.:
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) published a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times on Saturday (10-10), calling for bipartisan support for passing climate legislation soon.
They stressed that clean energy is an economic & national security issue, and argued that the United States could lead the world in the increasingly competitive global clean economy. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?scp=1&sq=kerry%20graham&st=cse.
(From the Clean Economy Network
CEN Weekly Intelligence Update October 13, 2009.
You can sign up for this free weekly email at http://www.cleaneconomy.net .)
Here’s a key quote from their Op Ed piece.:
“Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.”
Their solution is to work a compromise that does its best to combine the best and most safely doable from each party’s wish list.
Their key idea is to build an energy bill to both reduce our impact on global warming AND increase our energy independence while installing safeguards to prevent near term increases in energy costs at a rate that would cause economic harm.
With only one exception, their Op Ed piece lists a good compromise and combined wish list.
A. For global warming,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Such plants use no fossil fuels and release no CO2; and a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity PLUS more nuclear generated electricity produces a much more stable and predictable energy supply than only a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity. Paradoxically, because that makes a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity more practical, it may well make it more doable and faster to arrive.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
We already have a lot of it & burn huge amounts of it to make electricity now which releases a lot of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration looks more than a bit iffy to me because it’s hard to do in volume and looks iffy to do securely plus adding a massive extra cost. But turning much of the coal into natural gas which generates much of its heat by burning the hydrogen and with far less air pollution, turning some of it into gasoline as the Germans once did during World War II, and whenever any coal or natural gas is burned in plants to generate electricity, feeding all or most of the CO2 generated to algae to make biofuels allows us to use the Carbon twice and to substitute for oil supplies that would otherwise run out sooner.
3. Increase energy efficiency.
This reduces CO2 release since you can burn the same or less amount of fossil fuels and still have economic growth. It means you no longer have to keep building more coal fired plants for example.
4. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce CO2. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce CO2 release even more over time. Further, they begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources.
5. The only aspect their Op Ed piece fails to address directly is a strong emphasis on legislation ensuring massive increases in renewable energy installations.
They do however suggest that ensuring that we are competitive with the best clean technology companies in the world and developing and supporting such companies here in the United States would help ensure a strong economy. And, if that set of goals is met, it will help ensure much more building of renewable energy installations.
Clearly, however it is fostered, building of renewable energy installations in large quantities will help slow global warming.
B. For breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil and doing so in ways that avoid over-taxing or slowing our economy,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Since these plants generate electricity at night when so many more people are asleep, added nuclear power is a superb way to provide electricity at a time of day when it can recharge the batteries in all electric vehicles and plug-hybrids. That has the potential of cutting our entire use of petroleum in half or more. And that in turn makes importing far less oil from outside sources much more doable.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
Since two of the more doable ways, making methane gas and gasoline from coal; and making gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, and/or jet fuel from algae that eats the CO2 released when coal or methane made from it is burned -- both generate fuels cars and trucks can burn with no outside oil, or ANY oil at all for that matter, needed.
3. More but highly environmentally responsible offshore oil drilling.
The level of environmental safety needed &/or direct political resistance from West Coast states suggest that this is either undoable or in far smaller volume than proponents might like in those locations.
But, the prospects both politically and from the potential amount of accessible oil are vastly better for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, if the track record of the environmental controls is good enough there & once oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling off our West Coast might become more likely.
Also, both off Baja California and in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, a deal with Mexico might add yet another way to add more offshore drilling.
Lastly, as oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling into oil deposits offshore from our West Coast may be become economically affordable by drilling into them from rigs actually located ONSHORE.
4. Increase energy efficiency.
Every time we use new more energy efficient devices in them or retrofit more energy efficient devices and systems into our vehicles and buildings we need less oil and less natural gas or oil or coal generated electricity. That enables us to use far less oil and can substantially contribute to reducing our dependence on outside sources of oil.
5. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce the amount of oil we use. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce the amount of oil we use even more over time. In addition, they will begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources and that will also reduce the amount of oil we use and sharply reduce the amount of oil we need to import.
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
By the way, it’s my opinion that the countries that supply the oil now that we will no longer need will do fine if these things come to pass.
1. The process will take many years and they will have very slow drop offs in the amount of oil they send our way at first.
2. Since the rest of the world is developing economically, they will have other customers for most of the oil we stop getting from them.
3. These countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have as much solar thermal reserves as they do oil. As the world turns to more renewable energy and the solar thermal industry develops more cost effective technology and economies of scale, these countries will add very large revenues from that source at about the same time they get less from oil either because they have fewer buyers eventually or when they begin to run out.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-21-2009
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.
Supporting federal legislation would help. That’s why the news I got last week that begins to make that much more likely was such welcome news.:
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) published a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times on Saturday (10-10), calling for bipartisan support for passing climate legislation soon.
They stressed that clean energy is an economic & national security issue, and argued that the United States could lead the world in the increasingly competitive global clean economy. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?scp=1&sq=kerry%20graham&st=cse.
(From the Clean Economy Network
CEN Weekly Intelligence Update October 13, 2009.
You can sign up for this free weekly email at http://www.cleaneconomy.net .)
Here’s a key quote from their Op Ed piece.:
“Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.”
Their solution is to work a compromise that does its best to combine the best and most safely doable from each party’s wish list.
Their key idea is to build an energy bill to both reduce our impact on global warming AND increase our energy independence while installing safeguards to prevent near term increases in energy costs at a rate that would cause economic harm.
With only one exception, their Op Ed piece lists a good compromise and combined wish list.
A. For global warming,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Such plants use no fossil fuels and release no CO2; and a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity PLUS more nuclear generated electricity produces a much more stable and predictable energy supply than only a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity. Paradoxically, because that makes a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity more practical, it may well make it more doable and faster to arrive.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
We already have a lot of it & burn huge amounts of it to make electricity now which releases a lot of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration looks more than a bit iffy to me because it’s hard to do in volume and looks iffy to do securely plus adding a massive extra cost. But turning much of the coal into natural gas which generates much of its heat by burning the hydrogen and with far less air pollution, turning some of it into gasoline as the Germans once did during World War II, and whenever any coal or natural gas is burned in plants to generate electricity, feeding all or most of the CO2 generated to algae to make biofuels allows us to use the Carbon twice and to substitute for oil supplies that would otherwise run out sooner.
3. Increase energy efficiency.
This reduces CO2 release since you can burn the same or less amount of fossil fuels and still have economic growth. It means you no longer have to keep building more coal fired plants for example.
4. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce CO2. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce CO2 release even more over time. Further, they begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources.
5. The only aspect their Op Ed piece fails to address directly is a strong emphasis on legislation ensuring massive increases in renewable energy installations.
They do however suggest that ensuring that we are competitive with the best clean technology companies in the world and developing and supporting such companies here in the United States would help ensure a strong economy. And, if that set of goals is met, it will help ensure much more building of renewable energy installations.
Clearly, however it is fostered, building of renewable energy installations in large quantities will help slow global warming.
B. For breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil and doing so in ways that avoid over-taxing or slowing our economy,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Since these plants generate electricity at night when so many more people are asleep, added nuclear power is a superb way to provide electricity at a time of day when it can recharge the batteries in all electric vehicles and plug-hybrids. That has the potential of cutting our entire use of petroleum in half or more. And that in turn makes importing far less oil from outside sources much more doable.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
Since two of the more doable ways, making methane gas and gasoline from coal; and making gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, and/or jet fuel from algae that eats the CO2 released when coal or methane made from it is burned -- both generate fuels cars and trucks can burn with no outside oil, or ANY oil at all for that matter, needed.
3. More but highly environmentally responsible offshore oil drilling.
The level of environmental safety needed &/or direct political resistance from West Coast states suggest that this is either undoable or in far smaller volume than proponents might like in those locations.
But, the prospects both politically and from the potential amount of accessible oil are vastly better for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, if the track record of the environmental controls is good enough there & once oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling off our West Coast might become more likely.
Also, both off Baja California and in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, a deal with Mexico might add yet another way to add more offshore drilling.
Lastly, as oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling into oil deposits offshore from our West Coast may be become economically affordable by drilling into them from rigs actually located ONSHORE.
4. Increase energy efficiency.
Every time we use new more energy efficient devices in them or retrofit more energy efficient devices and systems into our vehicles and buildings we need less oil and less natural gas or oil or coal generated electricity. That enables us to use far less oil and can substantially contribute to reducing our dependence on outside sources of oil.
5. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce the amount of oil we use. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce the amount of oil we use even more over time. In addition, they will begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources and that will also reduce the amount of oil we use and sharply reduce the amount of oil we need to import.
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
By the way, it’s my opinion that the countries that supply the oil now that we will no longer need will do fine if these things come to pass.
1. The process will take many years and they will have very slow drop offs in the amount of oil they send our way at first.
2. Since the rest of the world is developing economically, they will have other customers for most of the oil we stop getting from them.
3. These countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have as much solar thermal reserves as they do oil. As the world turns to more renewable energy and the solar thermal industry develops more cost effective technology and economies of scale, these countries will add very large revenues from that source at about the same time they get less from oil either because they have fewer buyers eventually or when they begin to run out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)