Investing in Renewable Energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-24-2008
According to today’s news, there is now a much better chance that the renewable energy tax credits will be extended. The Senate passed a bill that does this which includes an 8 year extension for solar.
And, if the House also passes a companion bill, it looks as if the President will sign it. Since the Senate and the possibility of a Presidential veto were the main roadblocks until now, this looks good.
This has two investment implications.
A. Solar stocks have already gone up on this news. And, because this is a new industry with great promise, some renewable energy and solar stocks may be overvalued. In addition, some renewable companies that look promising now may lose out to better technology or stronger competitors a few years from now.
However, there are two reasons you might want to invest in these stocks now.
In my opinion, the market does not yet fully value the huge expansion in demand and sales that these companies collectively are likely to experience as the world transitions to an economy based on renewable energy.
Second, all stocks are still selling for less than they may well sell for once the financial markets stabilize.
So this is quite possibly a good time to invest in these stocks.
Given the risks, do NOT bet the rent money. But if you are younger or are rich enough to have investment money that’s safe to put into higher risk, higher reward stocks that might multiply in value, this could be a good time to invest.
1. Here’s a website that has four renewable energy ideas and companies. The company I know, Nanosolar, is not now a public company. And, the other three may also still be private. But the technologies look interesting. And the companies may be good investments if they ever go public.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-09-08-energy-innovations-environment_N.htm/
Nanosolar is the thin film solar company. They also include a company that is gearing up to make ethanol from algae; a company with a biofuel substitute for coal in facilities that now burn coal; & and a more cost effective way to store wind energy for release when the wind is NOT blowing.
2. TheStreet.com has a whole suite of articles on solar and renewable energy and on solar and renewable energy companies that have stock that you CAN buy. It also has information on two ETF’s that enable you to make a bet on the industry without betting all your money on one or two companies.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10431707/1/solar-energy-what-you-need-to-know.html?puc=_tscrss
My take on it is that if, as now looks likely, the renewable energy tax credits ARE extended; & the financial markets do stabilize as Warren Buffett is betting with his large investment in Goldman Sachs, solar and renewable energy stocks will go mostly higher from here.
B. In other news, it looks increasingly likely that cap & trade systems to cut CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will be tried more and more.
This may mean sharp increases in the price of power from utilities now generating electricity from burning fossil fuels once these systems become widespread.
So, to protect yourself from being totally dependent on the utilities that still mostly burn fossil fuels for your electricity, if you possibly can arrange to engineer your home or business for energy efficiency and install solar panels it may pay you double to do so. You’ll get tax credits to help pay for it. And, you’ll wind up saving a lot of money on the electricity you use.
Unlike buying solar and renewable energy stocks, that looks both safe & prudent and likely to give you a reliably positive return.
If you can afford it, why not do some of each?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
New information on energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-17-2008
Some information on energy that I read today may be accurate at last in part and if so is likely quite important.
A. A free email newsletter that I subscribe to is mostly for entrepreneurs and people who would like to do online information marketing or simply manage to have more money. And, this newsletter also has good articles on health and on managing or working well in companies.
It’s called Early to Rise. And, you can see today’s issue or subscribe to it yourself if you like at www.earlytorise.com .
As you might imagine, they make their money by selling information products or allowing other information marketers to advertise on their website and newsletter.
The very first item today was an ad:
"What George Bush Was Told Behind Closed Doors…Could Make You Very Rich
Special Report: Make Enormous Gains Before Wall Street Wakes Up to the "Oil Hoax" "
The first sentence sounded so dreadful, I almost skipped reading the rest of the teaser copy. But the next sentence and those that followed caught my eye.
It seems the investment letter writer who is advertising is willing to explain what he sees as some of the more important and little known aspects of the world energy situation that will cause some investments to go up dramatically. Of course, you have to pay him to find out what stocks he’s found that this information suggests may do unusually well.
I found some of what he had to say worth reading. Some of it I think he has right. Some of it will be correct but not for very long. And some of it may not be correct.
That said, I thought it worth bringing some of his comments to your attention.
1. The “oil hoax” he speaks of is NOT that people are being oversold that oil will run out. It’s that oil may be running out much faster than many people have been led to believe it will.
It seems that the Saudis and other members of OPEC have very possibly inflated their real oil reserves that they claim to have to increase the share of the OPEC oil they can pump & deliver. Or, as other members do this, they do it also to avoid having their share shrink. This is the “oil hoax” he speaks of.
In 1979 when ARAMCO left, his article says they said that Saudi Arabia had 110 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Between then and 17 years later, the Saudis have extracted 46 billion barrels. So, if the 110 reserve figure was accurate, they would have about 64 billion barrels left.
And, he states they have found no new oil fields between then and now. But they claim to now have 260 billion barrels of reserves.
Did they hire someone with better technology to better survey their known reserves and find that much more oil? Did the increase in oil prices allow for more complete extraction, albeit using more expensive methods? Was new extraction technology developed?
If so, maybe they do still have 260 billion barrels of oil left. But because they had an incentive to claim more and did not add any few oilfields, the writer’s point is that they might only have the 64 billion barrels of oil left.
If that’s so & oil consumption per year goes up somewhat, they might only have 20 years of supply left.
This author doesn’t seem to know anything about renewable energy. But some of his other ideas that follow may have some validity.
The first thing that strikes me is that if any of the executives of the major oil companies believe this information might be accurate, it would certainly explain them spending a lot or money to get the politicians willing to do so to support a lot more offshore drilling for oil in the United States.
He makes a lot of other points that he believes follow from this first point.
2. He says that Europeans have developed efficient and clean burning and quiet diesel engines. He says that the remaining particulate pollution from such engines can be eliminated by a new technology that removes them from the exhaust pipe or tailpipe of the engine.
And, he believes that this kind of diesel in a diesel hybrid car may be the winning technology in energy efficient new cars.
He then goes on to say that coal can be used as a feedstock to make diesel fuel in a nonpolluting way.
Those ideas might be partly accurate. If they are, the company or companies that make and sell the new “tailpipe” pollution removers for such diesel engines would indeed do very well as might his clients who bought the stock of the company that developed the technology.
He also suggest that this “clean coal” use of coal will make the prices of coal and the stock of competent coal extracting companies go up if it’s used on as large a scale as he anticipates for these reasons.
3. He also believes that natural gas prices will go up dramatically from here and that natural gas is undervalued now so the percentage gains could be quite large. And the stocks that are pure plays in extracting natural gas, delivering it by pipeline, and those of companies that are LNG, Liquefied Natural Gas, related will all do well.
If this is thought to be accurate by oil company executives, it would also explain their interest in more offshore drilling as some of the prospective new areas in which to drill offshore, according this writer, have huge natural gas deposits.
He also says that such a run up in natural gas prices might well induce parts of the world that now flare off the natural gas that is to them a byproduct of their oil fields to instead build LNG plants and transport that natural gas to market. (That would also eliminate some CO2 release that is now happening on a large scale that has no economic value to even partially justify it.)
4. He also says that South Korea, much of Western Europe, & China are all rapidly developing new nuclear plants to generate electricity. (He doesn’t say so. But I’ve read that India also plans to do this & that Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries may also do so.)
If that is true, and it does look to be true, based on the news I’ve seen, it may be good news for global warming as these plants may replace coal burning plants that would have been built or that now are burning coal.
But it has three other implications. One is that, although the existing nuclear facilities in these countries have not been raided so far as is known, by terrorists interested in making bombs, the potential for that might be growing on a worldwide basis.
And, even if they do not now exist in the United States, the companies that will build the components for these nuclear plants clearly exist or will be built elsewhere.
This suggests that the more nuclear plants may yet be built here.
B. I have several comments.
Since the upside potential of solar photovoltaics and solar thermal power is so huge, and is now cost competitive with coal and natural gas or very soon will be, this information suggest that it is even more important than we believed to start building more solar power generating sources both on individual buildings and as large solar power “farms” – and to begin immediately and continue until we have a huge amount of electricity flowing from solar sources.
If this is done, and many more nuclear electricity generating plants are built also, or the new natural gas source T Boone Pickens says is coming on line does do so, this may greatly soften the demand for natural gas and coal that the author of this piece now predicts. But if he is right in the short run, it will help us boost the use of solar as solar will clearly be cost competitive or even cheaper to build and operate than natural gas or coal burning plants.
However, if oil does begin to run out that soon, and liquefied coal diesel and biodiesel from algae do come online, both those kinds of businesses and the companies that make the diesel engines & pollution removal technology he describes may do well as he suggests.
His information also suggests that it might well pay us, economically & for the safety of our economy to do both the additional oil drilling and new nuclear plants the Republicans want AND the dramatic expansion of renewable energy the Democrats want to happen.
Since the renewable energy has the largest upside, is best for slowing global warming, and is safest to deploy, I still believe that Obama is by far the better choice for President.
But it also looks as if we need to address & use these other technologies this author describes; allow some more drilling for oil and natural gas in the short run & consider building more nuclear plants here.
And, whether we build more nuclear plants in the United States or not, we need to find out what we can do to ensure the safety of those that apparently are being build and will be built in the rest of the world.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-17-2008
Some information on energy that I read today may be accurate at last in part and if so is likely quite important.
A. A free email newsletter that I subscribe to is mostly for entrepreneurs and people who would like to do online information marketing or simply manage to have more money. And, this newsletter also has good articles on health and on managing or working well in companies.
It’s called Early to Rise. And, you can see today’s issue or subscribe to it yourself if you like at www.earlytorise.com .
As you might imagine, they make their money by selling information products or allowing other information marketers to advertise on their website and newsletter.
The very first item today was an ad:
"What George Bush Was Told Behind Closed Doors…Could Make You Very Rich
Special Report: Make Enormous Gains Before Wall Street Wakes Up to the "Oil Hoax" "
The first sentence sounded so dreadful, I almost skipped reading the rest of the teaser copy. But the next sentence and those that followed caught my eye.
It seems the investment letter writer who is advertising is willing to explain what he sees as some of the more important and little known aspects of the world energy situation that will cause some investments to go up dramatically. Of course, you have to pay him to find out what stocks he’s found that this information suggests may do unusually well.
I found some of what he had to say worth reading. Some of it I think he has right. Some of it will be correct but not for very long. And some of it may not be correct.
That said, I thought it worth bringing some of his comments to your attention.
1. The “oil hoax” he speaks of is NOT that people are being oversold that oil will run out. It’s that oil may be running out much faster than many people have been led to believe it will.
It seems that the Saudis and other members of OPEC have very possibly inflated their real oil reserves that they claim to have to increase the share of the OPEC oil they can pump & deliver. Or, as other members do this, they do it also to avoid having their share shrink. This is the “oil hoax” he speaks of.
In 1979 when ARAMCO left, his article says they said that Saudi Arabia had 110 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Between then and 17 years later, the Saudis have extracted 46 billion barrels. So, if the 110 reserve figure was accurate, they would have about 64 billion barrels left.
And, he states they have found no new oil fields between then and now. But they claim to now have 260 billion barrels of reserves.
Did they hire someone with better technology to better survey their known reserves and find that much more oil? Did the increase in oil prices allow for more complete extraction, albeit using more expensive methods? Was new extraction technology developed?
If so, maybe they do still have 260 billion barrels of oil left. But because they had an incentive to claim more and did not add any few oilfields, the writer’s point is that they might only have the 64 billion barrels of oil left.
If that’s so & oil consumption per year goes up somewhat, they might only have 20 years of supply left.
This author doesn’t seem to know anything about renewable energy. But some of his other ideas that follow may have some validity.
The first thing that strikes me is that if any of the executives of the major oil companies believe this information might be accurate, it would certainly explain them spending a lot or money to get the politicians willing to do so to support a lot more offshore drilling for oil in the United States.
He makes a lot of other points that he believes follow from this first point.
2. He says that Europeans have developed efficient and clean burning and quiet diesel engines. He says that the remaining particulate pollution from such engines can be eliminated by a new technology that removes them from the exhaust pipe or tailpipe of the engine.
And, he believes that this kind of diesel in a diesel hybrid car may be the winning technology in energy efficient new cars.
He then goes on to say that coal can be used as a feedstock to make diesel fuel in a nonpolluting way.
Those ideas might be partly accurate. If they are, the company or companies that make and sell the new “tailpipe” pollution removers for such diesel engines would indeed do very well as might his clients who bought the stock of the company that developed the technology.
He also suggest that this “clean coal” use of coal will make the prices of coal and the stock of competent coal extracting companies go up if it’s used on as large a scale as he anticipates for these reasons.
3. He also believes that natural gas prices will go up dramatically from here and that natural gas is undervalued now so the percentage gains could be quite large. And the stocks that are pure plays in extracting natural gas, delivering it by pipeline, and those of companies that are LNG, Liquefied Natural Gas, related will all do well.
If this is thought to be accurate by oil company executives, it would also explain their interest in more offshore drilling as some of the prospective new areas in which to drill offshore, according this writer, have huge natural gas deposits.
He also says that such a run up in natural gas prices might well induce parts of the world that now flare off the natural gas that is to them a byproduct of their oil fields to instead build LNG plants and transport that natural gas to market. (That would also eliminate some CO2 release that is now happening on a large scale that has no economic value to even partially justify it.)
4. He also says that South Korea, much of Western Europe, & China are all rapidly developing new nuclear plants to generate electricity. (He doesn’t say so. But I’ve read that India also plans to do this & that Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries may also do so.)
If that is true, and it does look to be true, based on the news I’ve seen, it may be good news for global warming as these plants may replace coal burning plants that would have been built or that now are burning coal.
But it has three other implications. One is that, although the existing nuclear facilities in these countries have not been raided so far as is known, by terrorists interested in making bombs, the potential for that might be growing on a worldwide basis.
And, even if they do not now exist in the United States, the companies that will build the components for these nuclear plants clearly exist or will be built elsewhere.
This suggests that the more nuclear plants may yet be built here.
B. I have several comments.
Since the upside potential of solar photovoltaics and solar thermal power is so huge, and is now cost competitive with coal and natural gas or very soon will be, this information suggest that it is even more important than we believed to start building more solar power generating sources both on individual buildings and as large solar power “farms” – and to begin immediately and continue until we have a huge amount of electricity flowing from solar sources.
If this is done, and many more nuclear electricity generating plants are built also, or the new natural gas source T Boone Pickens says is coming on line does do so, this may greatly soften the demand for natural gas and coal that the author of this piece now predicts. But if he is right in the short run, it will help us boost the use of solar as solar will clearly be cost competitive or even cheaper to build and operate than natural gas or coal burning plants.
However, if oil does begin to run out that soon, and liquefied coal diesel and biodiesel from algae do come online, both those kinds of businesses and the companies that make the diesel engines & pollution removal technology he describes may do well as he suggests.
His information also suggests that it might well pay us, economically & for the safety of our economy to do both the additional oil drilling and new nuclear plants the Republicans want AND the dramatic expansion of renewable energy the Democrats want to happen.
Since the renewable energy has the largest upside, is best for slowing global warming, and is safest to deploy, I still believe that Obama is by far the better choice for President.
But it also looks as if we need to address & use these other technologies this author describes; allow some more drilling for oil and natural gas in the short run & consider building more nuclear plants here.
And, whether we build more nuclear plants in the United States or not, we need to find out what we can do to ensure the safety of those that apparently are being build and will be built in the rest of the world.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Save & extend the renewable energy tax credits....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-10-2008
On the renewable energy tax credits issue.:
Since renewable energy is clearly able to provide very nearly all the energy our economy needs once it is fully developed & both our climate & our economy totally depend on that development beginning right away, THE most important issue is to see to it that those credits are successfully renewed THIS year.
It would be very desirable to have them extended for at least 5 years instead of longer. But whether or not that's done, it's imperative that they be renewed at all THIS YEAR.
Yes, it would be nice to not add more drilling as that has less upside for lowering energy costs, causes some harm to beach areas, & is a bad idea for improving global warming & would actually be somewhat harmful to it.
Yes, since the oil companies see themselves as oil companies instead of energy companies and now have huge cash surpluses, it would be nice to tax them or cancel tax credits they have now to provide more funds for renewable energy.
But as the voters begin to see more progress in renewable energy and more harmful weather events from global warming, their support for drilling will decrease and their support for taxing the oil companies will increase.
Here's my point. If the renewable energy tax credits are not renewed THIS time, it will delay the development of renewable energy just as it is beginning to take off.
Since the credits will NOT be renewed if that's tied to taxing the oil companies because President Bush will veto the bill, we need a bill that has no such provision.
And, since the bill or bills will not pass without support from those in congress who believe in drilling, the drilling provisions need to be as close to their desires as possible.
Clearly having a state option for drilling is a good idea.
But since Alaskans apparently support drilling, it might make some sense to include some drilling in the least environmentally sensitive parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And, since the potential for oil production is so great, it might be wise to add as much as drilling as possible in the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling provisions need to be just enough to get the bill passed. And, since I strongly believe our economy & maybe our ability to grow food depend on allowing the renewable energy industry to get off the ground NOW, I'd rather see those legislators offered a bit more than the minimum they want to insure the bill or bills pass.
If the renewable energy industry takes off, the economies of scale & new technologies then adopted will make it cost competitive with fossil fuels very soon. And, even ordinary citizens will soon see how real it is.
At that point, & hopefully with a better informed President who actually supports renewable energy, it may work to levy a small tax on the oil companies or fossil fuels or both.
And, it can initially be a very tiny tax. The income tax started as a very tiny tax that only rich people paid. Once such taxes exist, I believe they will increase substantially over time.
But we need to wait until the voters clearly support it and for when trying unsuccessfully to get it does no harm to renewable energy now.
Today, the renewable energy industry is about to really take off. But just like an airliner on the runway having a big truck pull into its path just before take off, the congress is now sitting in its way.
Please let's offer the other side enough of what they want & avoid asking them to support things they will not, so we can pull the truck off the runway.
We can get more things they do not want later when the voters are better informed & there are more legislators who support those things in office.
But for now it's much more important and more doable to work with the current legislators to get a bill that WILL pass & which the President WILL sign that extends the renewable energy tax credits.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-10-2008
On the renewable energy tax credits issue.:
Since renewable energy is clearly able to provide very nearly all the energy our economy needs once it is fully developed & both our climate & our economy totally depend on that development beginning right away, THE most important issue is to see to it that those credits are successfully renewed THIS year.
It would be very desirable to have them extended for at least 5 years instead of longer. But whether or not that's done, it's imperative that they be renewed at all THIS YEAR.
Yes, it would be nice to not add more drilling as that has less upside for lowering energy costs, causes some harm to beach areas, & is a bad idea for improving global warming & would actually be somewhat harmful to it.
Yes, since the oil companies see themselves as oil companies instead of energy companies and now have huge cash surpluses, it would be nice to tax them or cancel tax credits they have now to provide more funds for renewable energy.
But as the voters begin to see more progress in renewable energy and more harmful weather events from global warming, their support for drilling will decrease and their support for taxing the oil companies will increase.
Here's my point. If the renewable energy tax credits are not renewed THIS time, it will delay the development of renewable energy just as it is beginning to take off.
Since the credits will NOT be renewed if that's tied to taxing the oil companies because President Bush will veto the bill, we need a bill that has no such provision.
And, since the bill or bills will not pass without support from those in congress who believe in drilling, the drilling provisions need to be as close to their desires as possible.
Clearly having a state option for drilling is a good idea.
But since Alaskans apparently support drilling, it might make some sense to include some drilling in the least environmentally sensitive parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And, since the potential for oil production is so great, it might be wise to add as much as drilling as possible in the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling provisions need to be just enough to get the bill passed. And, since I strongly believe our economy & maybe our ability to grow food depend on allowing the renewable energy industry to get off the ground NOW, I'd rather see those legislators offered a bit more than the minimum they want to insure the bill or bills pass.
If the renewable energy industry takes off, the economies of scale & new technologies then adopted will make it cost competitive with fossil fuels very soon. And, even ordinary citizens will soon see how real it is.
At that point, & hopefully with a better informed President who actually supports renewable energy, it may work to levy a small tax on the oil companies or fossil fuels or both.
And, it can initially be a very tiny tax. The income tax started as a very tiny tax that only rich people paid. Once such taxes exist, I believe they will increase substantially over time.
But we need to wait until the voters clearly support it and for when trying unsuccessfully to get it does no harm to renewable energy now.
Today, the renewable energy industry is about to really take off. But just like an airliner on the runway having a big truck pull into its path just before take off, the congress is now sitting in its way.
Please let's offer the other side enough of what they want & avoid asking them to support things they will not, so we can pull the truck off the runway.
We can get more things they do not want later when the voters are better informed & there are more legislators who support those things in office.
But for now it's much more important and more doable to work with the current legislators to get a bill that WILL pass & which the President WILL sign that extends the renewable energy tax credits.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Beliefs about Energy Solutions....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-3-2008
A week ago last Friday on 8-22, 2008 Rasmussen, the polling company released the information that
“….voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help.”
(See www.rasmussenreports.com .) ”….37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar.”
As with just about everything in a political season, there is a significant partisan divide.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
For unaffiliated voters, it's a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.”
“…. Voters believe there is an urgent national need to find new sources of energy.
They also believe McCain's priority is to find more energy sources while Obama's is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked about biofuels such as ethanol. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very Likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.”
The facts are these from the information I’ve gotten.:
1. The reality is that we badly need to install as much of the wind generation of electricity as we can as the potential is clearly there for a significant contribution from wind. It may not get as high as 20 %; but it clearly can get to 10 % or more. And, it’s already cost competitive with fossil fuels. It’s much safer & less expensive than nuclear power and already being built.
T. Boone Pickens idea to use natural gas for cars probably is not likely to be as productive as massive increases in electric cars and plug in hybrids. But his understanding of & publicity about wind generated electricity and the need to install lots of it and the new transmission lines needed to get it to the urban areas where it will be used is brilliant & much needed.
2. The reality is that solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds are at parity with coal for electricity generation for solar thermal farms and already close to it for thin film solar photovoltaics.
Since the potential is available to supply over 100 % of our electricity needs from this combination, it’s crystal clear that if we want to solve global warming and prevent a poor or collapsing economy caused by more increases in gasoline and other fossil fuel prices and/or restricted supply, we need to make very rapid and massive increases in building solar thermal farms & widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds.
It’s doable and has the most ability to bail us out. But it’s not likely to be built on a large enough scale or soon enough if only 25% of the people know this information.
3. Technically nuclear power can make a contribution. And, I think it will be used.
But it should only be built with the appropriate breeder technology to dramatically reduce extremely long lived radioactive wastes and to make it last longer than the projected 35 year supply if we don’t use breeder technology. And, it should only be built if the security against terrorists stealing the fissionable materials in the reactors that easily makes bombs is adequately in place.
This means it will be much more expensive to do safely than the polls suggest people have any clue that it will be.
This means we cannot rely on it that much.
4. Biofuels will help, particularly those made cost effectively from nonfood sources such as agricultural waste or weeds (such as Switchgrass or Kudzu) or algae. Given the installed base of diesel engines and gasoline engines, we will need biofuels for many years if we are to phase out oil as much as we need to do.
But if the battery technology works as well as it looks likely to and the amount of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles goes up enough it will be enough more efficient to use solar generated electricity to power them that looks like the long term future for transport.
In conclusion, if our voters don’t know this information and see the evidence for it, particularly for the huge potential of solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds, they won’t support the building of them enough to keep our economy out of trouble. And we can forget about solving global warming.
According to this Rasmussen survey, this has NOT happened yet.
Secondly, since Barack Obama and the Democrats are best informed & most likely to do the right things, it’s scary that the survey finds a perception of them as being in favor only of conservation and doing without.
If they want to be elected as I think we need for them to be to protect our economy and move towards a solution to global warming, they need very much to get the facts out that massive increases in renewable energy are realistic AND needed to keep our economy from getting much WORSE.
They need to bring home to the average voter, as this survey shows they have NOT done, that they have a realistic plan to not only keep the economy from getting worse but one that will move us to where we can safely have more – and MUCH more than we will otherwise.
The Democrats in this election ARE the ones who will best protect & improve our economy but they need to do an excellent and effective job in letting the voters know it or we are all in trouble.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-3-2008
A week ago last Friday on 8-22, 2008 Rasmussen, the polling company released the information that
“….voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help.”
(See www.rasmussenreports.com .) ”….37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar.”
As with just about everything in a political season, there is a significant partisan divide.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
For unaffiliated voters, it's a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.”
“…. Voters believe there is an urgent national need to find new sources of energy.
They also believe McCain's priority is to find more energy sources while Obama's is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked about biofuels such as ethanol. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very Likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.”
The facts are these from the information I’ve gotten.:
1. The reality is that we badly need to install as much of the wind generation of electricity as we can as the potential is clearly there for a significant contribution from wind. It may not get as high as 20 %; but it clearly can get to 10 % or more. And, it’s already cost competitive with fossil fuels. It’s much safer & less expensive than nuclear power and already being built.
T. Boone Pickens idea to use natural gas for cars probably is not likely to be as productive as massive increases in electric cars and plug in hybrids. But his understanding of & publicity about wind generated electricity and the need to install lots of it and the new transmission lines needed to get it to the urban areas where it will be used is brilliant & much needed.
2. The reality is that solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds are at parity with coal for electricity generation for solar thermal farms and already close to it for thin film solar photovoltaics.
Since the potential is available to supply over 100 % of our electricity needs from this combination, it’s crystal clear that if we want to solve global warming and prevent a poor or collapsing economy caused by more increases in gasoline and other fossil fuel prices and/or restricted supply, we need to make very rapid and massive increases in building solar thermal farms & widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds.
It’s doable and has the most ability to bail us out. But it’s not likely to be built on a large enough scale or soon enough if only 25% of the people know this information.
3. Technically nuclear power can make a contribution. And, I think it will be used.
But it should only be built with the appropriate breeder technology to dramatically reduce extremely long lived radioactive wastes and to make it last longer than the projected 35 year supply if we don’t use breeder technology. And, it should only be built if the security against terrorists stealing the fissionable materials in the reactors that easily makes bombs is adequately in place.
This means it will be much more expensive to do safely than the polls suggest people have any clue that it will be.
This means we cannot rely on it that much.
4. Biofuels will help, particularly those made cost effectively from nonfood sources such as agricultural waste or weeds (such as Switchgrass or Kudzu) or algae. Given the installed base of diesel engines and gasoline engines, we will need biofuels for many years if we are to phase out oil as much as we need to do.
But if the battery technology works as well as it looks likely to and the amount of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles goes up enough it will be enough more efficient to use solar generated electricity to power them that looks like the long term future for transport.
In conclusion, if our voters don’t know this information and see the evidence for it, particularly for the huge potential of solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds, they won’t support the building of them enough to keep our economy out of trouble. And we can forget about solving global warming.
According to this Rasmussen survey, this has NOT happened yet.
Secondly, since Barack Obama and the Democrats are best informed & most likely to do the right things, it’s scary that the survey finds a perception of them as being in favor only of conservation and doing without.
If they want to be elected as I think we need for them to be to protect our economy and move towards a solution to global warming, they need very much to get the facts out that massive increases in renewable energy are realistic AND needed to keep our economy from getting much WORSE.
They need to bring home to the average voter, as this survey shows they have NOT done, that they have a realistic plan to not only keep the economy from getting worse but one that will move us to where we can safely have more – and MUCH more than we will otherwise.
The Democrats in this election ARE the ones who will best protect & improve our economy but they need to do an excellent and effective job in letting the voters know it or we are all in trouble.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Superb analysis & a reality check on Renewable Energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-27-2008
A week ago, though I just happened across it yesterday, TIME published an opinion & analysis piece that was so extremely well done, I’ve included most of it below.
(The original was at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1834265,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci .)
I added some paragraphing to make some of the writer’s points stand out & will add my comments and the reality check I found after the quote I include here.:
Putting US Energy in the Wrong Place Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008
By BRYAN WALSH
“….The reality is that whether the U.S. drills or not, it really doesn't make a difference — not against the sheer scale of the energy and climate crisis facing America and the rest of the world.
(Indeed, the other 6.3 billion people factor into this equation too.)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that under a business-as-usual scenario — which the U.S. seems intent on abiding — global oil demand would rise 70% by 2050. That increase represents five times as much oil as Saudi Arabia produces annually. You could drill America with exploratory wells until it looked like Swiss cheese and still not make much of a dent in that figure.
That's not to say offshore drilling should be off limits. The world will be on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and we will need more oil. If individual U.S. states want to take the risk of opening up their coastlines to drilling, let them — it's not a battle environmentalists should insist on winning.
The larger problem is that the Presidential campaign has been captured by a mostly meaningless debate over offshore drilling, which is obscuring a far more relevant question regarding the energy crisis: how can America develop workable alternative fuels — right here and right now?
Instead of squabbling over the nickels and dimes of offshore oil, we need to create a national plan to capture the future of energy: wind, solar, electric cars, next-generation biofuels. And this should be America's priority even among those who don't believe a word Al Gore has ever said about global warming.
If we have any chance of avoiding a future where we feel nostalgic for $4-a-gallon gas, or where countries with lots of oil (Russia, for example) can make a mockery of our foreign policy, we'll need scaled-up alternatives now.
Drilling advocates argue that we need to start exploring now so we'll reap the benefits in a decade, but the same goes for development of renewables — we have no time to waste.
It's too bad we seem to be treating alternative energy policy as somewhat less important than, say, passing resolutions to establish National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week (May 5-9).
Eight times this year, the Senate has failed to pass legislation that would extend tax credits that encourage the development of the wind and solar industry, legislation that will expire at the end of December.
(McCain, it should be noted, missed all eight of those votes — a record that doesn't jibe well with his campaign promises to pursue an aggressive alternative energy program along with offshore drilling.)
Without those tax credits, the renewable energy industry "is grinding to a halt," says Peter Duprey, CEO of the North American arm of the Spanish renewable company Acciona Energy, which has a 64-megawatt solar thermal plant operating outside Las Vegas, and recently launched a 180-megawatt wind farm on the border between North Dakota and South Dakota. "Everyone says America is the land of opportunity for renewables," says Duprey. "We have to get serious about it."
Duprey points out that the arguments used by proponents of offshore drilling can also be used to support aggressive investment in alternatives. "We have this vast untapped renewable energy reserves, just like oil and gas," he says, referring to the rich wind resources of the Midwest and the solar potential of the Southwest. "We just need to build the transmission lines to move that energy out."
Think of it that way, and suddenly alternatives don't seem like a far-off solution based on science fiction, but a resource that exists today, if it can be tapped — just like offshore oil.
That's a job for government, whether it means building the lines directly or using tax credits to support private industry.
This is the debate we should be having this election season — not an empty argument over offshore drilling or properly inflated tires.”
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
Bryan Walsh makes some superb points in this essay. He makes them so well that I decided not to paraphrase his comments but include them directly as a quote.
Here are my comments on this; “The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that under a business-as-usual scenario — which the U.S. seems intent on abiding — global oil demand would rise 70% by 2050.”
As I’ve posted before, that is totally scary if we are on the edge of creating irreversible global warming that will bankrupt the economies of the nations of the world and devastate our ability to grow food and flood our coastal cities. If that is the case, as the evidence suggests, burning that much more oil will create catastrophic consequences.
The good news is that many people in the United States do NOT support business as usual. They know that it has unacceptable consequences and that the technology is now in place to generate that much renewable energy and more. So, it is the policy of the United States government he is actually speaking about here.
So, endorsing the people in government or who might be -- who intend to continue business as usual looks like a horrible idea to me.
George Bush & his administration have continued business as usual.
And, John McCain has done several things, from his emphasis on more drilling for oil, to declining to support renewable energy at key times even before he became a candidate for President that very much suggest he will do exactly the same thing.
That point Bryan Walsh did notice.: “(McCain, it should be noted, missed all eight of those votes — a record that doesn't jibe well with his campaign promises to pursue an aggressive alternative energy program along with offshore drilling.)”
These votes to continue the renewable energy tax credits this year that did NOT pass may well set back the launching of many well planned solar & wind projects if a bill continuing them fails to pass before the end of the year.
In my opinion, if John McCain was knowledgeable enough on these issues to be qualified to be and trusted to be President of the United States in these times, he would have been at all eight of the votes and worked to create a compromise that included some drilling provisions but continued the renewable energy tax credits AND then showed up to vote for them each time.
To me, the fact he failed to do this doesn’t just mean we should all vote for his opponent, they mean we should also pray that he never becomes our President too.
I think our country deserves a better fate than the one continuing the Bush Administration’s business as usual policies will produce.
The only point that Bryan Walsh missed is that there is ample evidence now to show that renewable energy is a larger resource that we can bring onstream faster than we can add that much oil production.
He also leaves out the fact that it may not be possible to increase oil production that much.
The reality check is that despite the far greater amount of energy available from solar, so far most of our increase of renewable energy has been from wind power.
And, the amount of that, though modestly impressive, is not yet any where near enough.
I saw recently that Texas now generates 3568 megawatts of electricity from renewable source and that Iowa generates 1267 megawatts. (And the vast majority in both of those states is from wind power.)
Despite each having the potential to generate more than those two states combined many times over from solar energy, the states that have the most solar potential, California, Colorado, Nevada, & New Mexico only generated 2058 Megawatts between them. And some of that was from wind power.
(John McCain’s home state of Arizona despite its huge solar potential generated less than the 90 megawatts that New Mexico did.)
This means that even though the need is there and the technology is there and the demand for energy is making the more limited fossil fuels rise in price enough to make renewable energy economically competitive, we have a very long way yet to go.
Will we have a President who gets it & will help us get a fast start in getting there?
Or, will we have a long delay while the situation worsens with more business as it has been before?
Like everyone else, I have my preferences on other issues. But they are irrelevant compared to this one.
Energy, more to the point, massive increases in renewable energy as soon as we can possibly deliver it, are THE issue.
Whether or not it’s even possible for the other issues to continue to be addressed, let alone addressed well, depends totally on this one issue.
Please vote accordingly.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-27-2008
A week ago, though I just happened across it yesterday, TIME published an opinion & analysis piece that was so extremely well done, I’ve included most of it below.
(The original was at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1834265,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci .)
I added some paragraphing to make some of the writer’s points stand out & will add my comments and the reality check I found after the quote I include here.:
Putting US Energy in the Wrong Place Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008
By BRYAN WALSH
“….The reality is that whether the U.S. drills or not, it really doesn't make a difference — not against the sheer scale of the energy and climate crisis facing America and the rest of the world.
(Indeed, the other 6.3 billion people factor into this equation too.)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that under a business-as-usual scenario — which the U.S. seems intent on abiding — global oil demand would rise 70% by 2050. That increase represents five times as much oil as Saudi Arabia produces annually. You could drill America with exploratory wells until it looked like Swiss cheese and still not make much of a dent in that figure.
That's not to say offshore drilling should be off limits. The world will be on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and we will need more oil. If individual U.S. states want to take the risk of opening up their coastlines to drilling, let them — it's not a battle environmentalists should insist on winning.
The larger problem is that the Presidential campaign has been captured by a mostly meaningless debate over offshore drilling, which is obscuring a far more relevant question regarding the energy crisis: how can America develop workable alternative fuels — right here and right now?
Instead of squabbling over the nickels and dimes of offshore oil, we need to create a national plan to capture the future of energy: wind, solar, electric cars, next-generation biofuels. And this should be America's priority even among those who don't believe a word Al Gore has ever said about global warming.
If we have any chance of avoiding a future where we feel nostalgic for $4-a-gallon gas, or where countries with lots of oil (Russia, for example) can make a mockery of our foreign policy, we'll need scaled-up alternatives now.
Drilling advocates argue that we need to start exploring now so we'll reap the benefits in a decade, but the same goes for development of renewables — we have no time to waste.
It's too bad we seem to be treating alternative energy policy as somewhat less important than, say, passing resolutions to establish National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week (May 5-9).
Eight times this year, the Senate has failed to pass legislation that would extend tax credits that encourage the development of the wind and solar industry, legislation that will expire at the end of December.
(McCain, it should be noted, missed all eight of those votes — a record that doesn't jibe well with his campaign promises to pursue an aggressive alternative energy program along with offshore drilling.)
Without those tax credits, the renewable energy industry "is grinding to a halt," says Peter Duprey, CEO of the North American arm of the Spanish renewable company Acciona Energy, which has a 64-megawatt solar thermal plant operating outside Las Vegas, and recently launched a 180-megawatt wind farm on the border between North Dakota and South Dakota. "Everyone says America is the land of opportunity for renewables," says Duprey. "We have to get serious about it."
Duprey points out that the arguments used by proponents of offshore drilling can also be used to support aggressive investment in alternatives. "We have this vast untapped renewable energy reserves, just like oil and gas," he says, referring to the rich wind resources of the Midwest and the solar potential of the Southwest. "We just need to build the transmission lines to move that energy out."
Think of it that way, and suddenly alternatives don't seem like a far-off solution based on science fiction, but a resource that exists today, if it can be tapped — just like offshore oil.
That's a job for government, whether it means building the lines directly or using tax credits to support private industry.
This is the debate we should be having this election season — not an empty argument over offshore drilling or properly inflated tires.”
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
Bryan Walsh makes some superb points in this essay. He makes them so well that I decided not to paraphrase his comments but include them directly as a quote.
Here are my comments on this; “The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that under a business-as-usual scenario — which the U.S. seems intent on abiding — global oil demand would rise 70% by 2050.”
As I’ve posted before, that is totally scary if we are on the edge of creating irreversible global warming that will bankrupt the economies of the nations of the world and devastate our ability to grow food and flood our coastal cities. If that is the case, as the evidence suggests, burning that much more oil will create catastrophic consequences.
The good news is that many people in the United States do NOT support business as usual. They know that it has unacceptable consequences and that the technology is now in place to generate that much renewable energy and more. So, it is the policy of the United States government he is actually speaking about here.
So, endorsing the people in government or who might be -- who intend to continue business as usual looks like a horrible idea to me.
George Bush & his administration have continued business as usual.
And, John McCain has done several things, from his emphasis on more drilling for oil, to declining to support renewable energy at key times even before he became a candidate for President that very much suggest he will do exactly the same thing.
That point Bryan Walsh did notice.: “(McCain, it should be noted, missed all eight of those votes — a record that doesn't jibe well with his campaign promises to pursue an aggressive alternative energy program along with offshore drilling.)”
These votes to continue the renewable energy tax credits this year that did NOT pass may well set back the launching of many well planned solar & wind projects if a bill continuing them fails to pass before the end of the year.
In my opinion, if John McCain was knowledgeable enough on these issues to be qualified to be and trusted to be President of the United States in these times, he would have been at all eight of the votes and worked to create a compromise that included some drilling provisions but continued the renewable energy tax credits AND then showed up to vote for them each time.
To me, the fact he failed to do this doesn’t just mean we should all vote for his opponent, they mean we should also pray that he never becomes our President too.
I think our country deserves a better fate than the one continuing the Bush Administration’s business as usual policies will produce.
The only point that Bryan Walsh missed is that there is ample evidence now to show that renewable energy is a larger resource that we can bring onstream faster than we can add that much oil production.
He also leaves out the fact that it may not be possible to increase oil production that much.
The reality check is that despite the far greater amount of energy available from solar, so far most of our increase of renewable energy has been from wind power.
And, the amount of that, though modestly impressive, is not yet any where near enough.
I saw recently that Texas now generates 3568 megawatts of electricity from renewable source and that Iowa generates 1267 megawatts. (And the vast majority in both of those states is from wind power.)
Despite each having the potential to generate more than those two states combined many times over from solar energy, the states that have the most solar potential, California, Colorado, Nevada, & New Mexico only generated 2058 Megawatts between them. And some of that was from wind power.
(John McCain’s home state of Arizona despite its huge solar potential generated less than the 90 megawatts that New Mexico did.)
This means that even though the need is there and the technology is there and the demand for energy is making the more limited fossil fuels rise in price enough to make renewable energy economically competitive, we have a very long way yet to go.
Will we have a President who gets it & will help us get a fast start in getting there?
Or, will we have a long delay while the situation worsens with more business as it has been before?
Like everyone else, I have my preferences on other issues. But they are irrelevant compared to this one.
Energy, more to the point, massive increases in renewable energy as soon as we can possibly deliver it, are THE issue.
Whether or not it’s even possible for the other issues to continue to be addressed, let alone addressed well, depends totally on this one issue.
Please vote accordingly.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Solar thermal electricity makes a huge positive difference....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-20-2008
Last Thursday, I went to a presentation by John O’Donnell, Executive Vice President of Ausra Inc which manufactures and builds solar thermal farms and electricity generation.
(See www.ausra.com .)
The number & value of the useful facts I learned was impressive. And, these were in addition to the positive things I already knew about renewable energy and the importance of switching our economy to it.
Many people believe that only tiny amounts of renewable energy can be developed or that it is not cost effective or both which results in their belief that it won’t do as much for our economy or lowering our cost of transport and driving as drilling for more domestic oil.
The facts do NOT back this view.
Wind power can provide a surprisingly large amount of our electricity. Depending on how you calculate it, it can provide 10 to 20% of our electricity use, perhaps more. And, somewhere in the United States the wind is blowing 24 hours a day.
And, solar photovoltaic panels can provide up to 100 % of our current electricity use.
But both wind power and solar photovoltaic power are variable power sources. Solar photovoltaic power is not available at night. And, unless inexpensive and energy efficient batteries or other forms of electricity storage are developed, we would need something more reliable on a 24, 7 basis in addition to those sources.
In addition, solar photovoltaic is not quite to the cost level needed to be less expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. And, it will need to be installed in literally thousand of locations across the country.
But when you add solar thermal to the equation the picture changes dramatically for the better in every respect.
1. Electricity generated by solar thermal farms of the kind already being built by Ausra and its many competitors world-wide, is ALREADY cost competitive with electricity produced by fossil fuels.
2. In addition, just this one source alone can provide over 90 % of our current energy use in the United States or more and do it 16 to 17 hours a day.
a) This is achievable from solar farms that it’s doable to build in the Western and South Western United States alone. If you add those that could be build in Baja California and Northwest Mexico, you can just about double that output.
b) It seems that storing the heated fluid from solar thermal at night is over 90 % efficient and far more efficient and inexpensive than saving that much electricity in batteries would be. So by building solar thermal farms and generation facilities in this entire area may be able to achieve electricity very close to the 24 7 availability we need with 16 hours a day being quite doable.
3. It’s not generally known but we already added about 25 % of our current electricity generation from natural gas over the last 15 years or so without any subsidies from government.
So, if we add some government incentives to build renewable energy & some disincentives to using fossil fuels, moving to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years WOULD be extremely challenging. But doing it in 15 years is doable. And doing it in 20 years would be easy.
In addition, if we start now and push we can add so much new cost-competitive renewable electricity within 5 to 10 years that electric cars and plug-in hybrids will begin to lower the demand for gasoline a good bit MORE than drilling for more oil will do in twice that time. And, the auto makers have already announced plans to produce those cars.
Also, John McCain spoke about nuclear power as an alternative solution. It seems that the industry has been mothballed to such an extent due to opposition to it that if we are to build any significant amount of it, we are talking about rebuilding this highly technical industry and this is so much the case, we would have trouble adding more than a few nuclear reactors in the next few years. John O’Donnell made it sound like adding just 5 in the next 10 years would be a considerable challenge.
Adding the 45 proposed by John McCain is extremely unlikely. So much so, John O’Donnell thinks Senator McCain is seriously misinformed.
And, although it’s true that recycling inside a nuclear reactor instead or removing the uranium will turn it into plutonium and produce more energy over dramatically longer time periods and eliminate the need to move and store radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years, if a terrorist gets the plutonium out, it takes relatively little expertise or cost to make a nuclear device. So such reactors will be virtually too costly to operate safely due to the extremely high cost of adequate security.
And, if we go the route of NOT doing this kind or recycling or breeder reactor, we only have about 35 years of uranium left and WOULD have to worry about moving and storing radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years.
We may decide that using breeder reactors and providing the security needed even though it has this very large downside risk may be a lesser evil than having all the coastal cities of the world be under 50 feet or more of seawater and having our weather change for the worst so much it keeps us from growing food to eat.
But, the good news is that we CAN do it all with renewable energy. And, this is in part the case because of what large scale solar thermal farms and generators can provide.
And, what little we cannot do directly with renewable energy now, we may well be able to do at less cost than nuclear reactors with adequate security by using the new battery technologies now being developed.
To do this will require that government at least work intelligently with the renewable energy industry even if there are NO incentives from government.
Now, the Bureau of Land Management is apparently only processing applications in a timely manner for oil companies and is dragging its feet to the point of incompetence or deliberate obstruction, possibly at the direction of the Bush administration, when processing renewable energy applications.
John McCain has voted against or abstained from votes where his supporting vote would have allowed more solar thermal projects to be built soon, and this is true even when some of the solar thermal projects were in his own home state of Arizona.
And, he spoke of his belief that nuclear power is the best solution literally as he was being photographed at a large wind power project.
Here is my take on it.:
John McCain seems like a good guy personally. And, he has said he thinks global warming should be addressed.
But his actions predict that if elected he will continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration: The deliberate lack of action on renewable energy and giving front burner support ONLY to the oil industry that have gotten us into this mess and are in part responsible for the lack of action to hold down gasoline prices is not desirable or even safe to continue.
Since the health of our economy and our way of life in the climate we have adapted ourselves to depend on action to install massive amounts of renewable energy, which is DOABLE NOW, I think John McCain is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Barack Obama is far from perfect and I don’t support some of his policies. But those considerations are secondary.
If our economy crashes or the effects of global warming cause both our economy and our ability to grow food to collapse, none of those considerations are at all important in comparison.
The energy economy and the policies of the next President and his administration will ruin us or save us. This is the single most important issue.
Obama will at least get us started on the right path. He even is willing to make some compromises with the backers of the oil industry to do so.
McCain’s actions suggest he is badly informed and will do little or worse, will prevent us from beginning.
And, at the moment, because Obama and the Democratic party have not yet communicated this information at all well, they are now running behind in the polls.
This is unnecessary since the facts are on their side and have been all along.
Will they show the voters in the United States this information and explain how it will impact these voters if they don’t know this information and act on it and support politicians who do?
They haven’t done it at all well yet. And, the clock is ticking.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-20-2008
Last Thursday, I went to a presentation by John O’Donnell, Executive Vice President of Ausra Inc which manufactures and builds solar thermal farms and electricity generation.
(See www.ausra.com .)
The number & value of the useful facts I learned was impressive. And, these were in addition to the positive things I already knew about renewable energy and the importance of switching our economy to it.
Many people believe that only tiny amounts of renewable energy can be developed or that it is not cost effective or both which results in their belief that it won’t do as much for our economy or lowering our cost of transport and driving as drilling for more domestic oil.
The facts do NOT back this view.
Wind power can provide a surprisingly large amount of our electricity. Depending on how you calculate it, it can provide 10 to 20% of our electricity use, perhaps more. And, somewhere in the United States the wind is blowing 24 hours a day.
And, solar photovoltaic panels can provide up to 100 % of our current electricity use.
But both wind power and solar photovoltaic power are variable power sources. Solar photovoltaic power is not available at night. And, unless inexpensive and energy efficient batteries or other forms of electricity storage are developed, we would need something more reliable on a 24, 7 basis in addition to those sources.
In addition, solar photovoltaic is not quite to the cost level needed to be less expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. And, it will need to be installed in literally thousand of locations across the country.
But when you add solar thermal to the equation the picture changes dramatically for the better in every respect.
1. Electricity generated by solar thermal farms of the kind already being built by Ausra and its many competitors world-wide, is ALREADY cost competitive with electricity produced by fossil fuels.
2. In addition, just this one source alone can provide over 90 % of our current energy use in the United States or more and do it 16 to 17 hours a day.
a) This is achievable from solar farms that it’s doable to build in the Western and South Western United States alone. If you add those that could be build in Baja California and Northwest Mexico, you can just about double that output.
b) It seems that storing the heated fluid from solar thermal at night is over 90 % efficient and far more efficient and inexpensive than saving that much electricity in batteries would be. So by building solar thermal farms and generation facilities in this entire area may be able to achieve electricity very close to the 24 7 availability we need with 16 hours a day being quite doable.
3. It’s not generally known but we already added about 25 % of our current electricity generation from natural gas over the last 15 years or so without any subsidies from government.
So, if we add some government incentives to build renewable energy & some disincentives to using fossil fuels, moving to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years WOULD be extremely challenging. But doing it in 15 years is doable. And doing it in 20 years would be easy.
In addition, if we start now and push we can add so much new cost-competitive renewable electricity within 5 to 10 years that electric cars and plug-in hybrids will begin to lower the demand for gasoline a good bit MORE than drilling for more oil will do in twice that time. And, the auto makers have already announced plans to produce those cars.
Also, John McCain spoke about nuclear power as an alternative solution. It seems that the industry has been mothballed to such an extent due to opposition to it that if we are to build any significant amount of it, we are talking about rebuilding this highly technical industry and this is so much the case, we would have trouble adding more than a few nuclear reactors in the next few years. John O’Donnell made it sound like adding just 5 in the next 10 years would be a considerable challenge.
Adding the 45 proposed by John McCain is extremely unlikely. So much so, John O’Donnell thinks Senator McCain is seriously misinformed.
And, although it’s true that recycling inside a nuclear reactor instead or removing the uranium will turn it into plutonium and produce more energy over dramatically longer time periods and eliminate the need to move and store radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years, if a terrorist gets the plutonium out, it takes relatively little expertise or cost to make a nuclear device. So such reactors will be virtually too costly to operate safely due to the extremely high cost of adequate security.
And, if we go the route of NOT doing this kind or recycling or breeder reactor, we only have about 35 years of uranium left and WOULD have to worry about moving and storing radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years.
We may decide that using breeder reactors and providing the security needed even though it has this very large downside risk may be a lesser evil than having all the coastal cities of the world be under 50 feet or more of seawater and having our weather change for the worst so much it keeps us from growing food to eat.
But, the good news is that we CAN do it all with renewable energy. And, this is in part the case because of what large scale solar thermal farms and generators can provide.
And, what little we cannot do directly with renewable energy now, we may well be able to do at less cost than nuclear reactors with adequate security by using the new battery technologies now being developed.
To do this will require that government at least work intelligently with the renewable energy industry even if there are NO incentives from government.
Now, the Bureau of Land Management is apparently only processing applications in a timely manner for oil companies and is dragging its feet to the point of incompetence or deliberate obstruction, possibly at the direction of the Bush administration, when processing renewable energy applications.
John McCain has voted against or abstained from votes where his supporting vote would have allowed more solar thermal projects to be built soon, and this is true even when some of the solar thermal projects were in his own home state of Arizona.
And, he spoke of his belief that nuclear power is the best solution literally as he was being photographed at a large wind power project.
Here is my take on it.:
John McCain seems like a good guy personally. And, he has said he thinks global warming should be addressed.
But his actions predict that if elected he will continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration: The deliberate lack of action on renewable energy and giving front burner support ONLY to the oil industry that have gotten us into this mess and are in part responsible for the lack of action to hold down gasoline prices is not desirable or even safe to continue.
Since the health of our economy and our way of life in the climate we have adapted ourselves to depend on action to install massive amounts of renewable energy, which is DOABLE NOW, I think John McCain is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Barack Obama is far from perfect and I don’t support some of his policies. But those considerations are secondary.
If our economy crashes or the effects of global warming cause both our economy and our ability to grow food to collapse, none of those considerations are at all important in comparison.
The energy economy and the policies of the next President and his administration will ruin us or save us. This is the single most important issue.
Obama will at least get us started on the right path. He even is willing to make some compromises with the backers of the oil industry to do so.
McCain’s actions suggest he is badly informed and will do little or worse, will prevent us from beginning.
And, at the moment, because Obama and the Democratic party have not yet communicated this information at all well, they are now running behind in the polls.
This is unnecessary since the facts are on their side and have been all along.
Will they show the voters in the United States this information and explain how it will impact these voters if they don’t know this information and act on it and support politicians who do?
They haven’t done it at all well yet. And, the clock is ticking.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
More renewable energy IS the solution....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-13-2008
As we have been posting about, the most important thing we can do to allow us to drive where we want to go and get everything we need shipped to stores, including food, at prices we will be able to afford is to dramatically increase our production of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.
(It looks like we should also increase our generation of electricity from nuclear power for the same reasons. But some people have reservations about doing so. And, renewables will work. Our position is that it will work faster and create a more reliable availability of electricity to do both. But whether we use more nuclear or not, we absolutely must use massive amounts of renewable sources and put them in place soon.)
Since a massive increase in our use of renewables has the potential to cut our demand for oil by well over 50 percent, this will also begin to drop the price of gasoline. And, it will begin to offer alternatives that cost LESS than gasoline. This will strengthen our economy in ways that a bit more domestic oil cannot even dream of doing.
It will also protect our economy for when oil simply begins to run out, which it will do at some point.
This process will take some amount of time to get into place. But it will work.
Unfortunately most Americans do not yet know this.
Meanwhile, doing more drilling for oil offshore and other places in the United States will both only provide enough oil to keep the price of gas from going up quite as fast. It will take a good bit of time to get online as well. And, the increased burning of oil that it will cause will worsen global warming.
So, it both has a negative effect on global warming AND has less than ten percent of the upside that adding massive renewable energy will have.
Apparently, most Americans do not yet know this either.:
Just a few days ago I found this polling result on the Rasmussen news item in the online news:
“Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) support going ahead with offshore oil drilling, an issue that John McCain seized on in early June as a way to help lower gas” (prices.)
And, it also said this:
“Forty-two percent (42%) said that offshore oil drilling would have the biggest impact in terms of reducing the price of oil -- a far higher percentage than believe that for several other options now being floated by the two major presidential candidates.”
& “Only 20% of Americans now oppose offshore drilling….”
This polling report also said this:
“By substantial margins, voters believe that the Republican candidate's top priority is finding new sources of energy while his Democratic opponent is more focused on reducing the amount of energy we consume.
Yet a separate survey found that for nearly two-thirds (65%), finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now use.”
This should be 100 percent in my view. Using less energy means a weaker economy and less buying power, personal freedom, and less economic security for everyone.
But by using massive amounts of new energy from renewables and retrofitting our economy to get more effective work done for less energy we will have a stronger economy with all the benefits that go with it. We will have MORE energy we get constructive use out of.
If we continue to rely on oil, the prices for the fuels made from it will continue to rise and our economy will remain at serious risk of collapse.
Of the two candidates, from what I’ve seen only Obama seems to know this & understand its implications.
Other than his proposal to increase nuclear power, John McCain is looking to simply continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration to ignore all this.
In my view, if we have 4 to 8 more years of this, we are headed for economic disaster.
So, in reality, Obama has by far the better take on what we need to protect our economy.
And, given the problems recently with our economy, that’s the issue that will decide the election.
But here’s the relevant results from the recent Rasmussen poll:
“… in terms of voter trust, other survey data shows that more voters now trust McCain over Obama on the energy issue.
Nationally the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very close race for the White House.”
This means that unless the Obama campaign can begin to show the American people that our economy is at even more risk than most people realize and that Obama truly wants to improve the economy – not just have everyone make do with less, and that there is massively MORE upside in his approach, he will very likely lose.
And, it looks to me that if the election were held now before this is done, he would lose.
The Obama campaign needs to get T Boone Pickens and his comment that this is a situation “we simply cannot drill ourselves out of” & the real proven, upside of his wind program wide publicity.
And, they can publicize information like this from the CEO of Nanosolar that shows the huge upside of powering electric cars with solar electricity.
“http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/
Going All-Electric
August 7, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO
The following is one of my favorite charts: A comparison of the distance a car can drive based on either of the following forms of energy, each produced on 100m x 100m of land (2.5 acres):
How come that biofuel does not really cut it? Electric cars are about four times more energy efficient than fuel based cars, no matter whether they are based on biofuel or other fuel. This is because any fuel engine mostly creates heat and thus wastes the majority of the available energy units. Combine this with plants not being very efficient solar energy harvesters relative to semiconductor based solar electricity, and the result is this huge difference.
In other words, it is clear that if the goal is to maximize energy efficiency, the end point to go after is all-electric cars everywhere. Moving all of transportation to all-electric would essentially cut in half our overall energy consumption while delivering the same distance.
I for one have vowed that the Prius I bought six years ago will have been the last fuel powered car I'd buy in my life. (Given that I may very well own the highest-mileage Prius on the planet, this probably reflects my confidence in the quality of this vehicle and the near-term readiness of electric car technology…) Presently, it is baking in the sun all day while I'm at work. My future all-electric car would charge up while idling under a solar carport.”
If the average American doesn’t know the upside of renewables and that it’s real and larger than the upside of drilling for more oil, Obama will lose.
And so will everyone in this country and in the world if our analysis is correct
The good news is that the politicians who believe we should drill for more oil are right about two things. It will give the public the feeling that everything possible is being done to reduce gas prices. And, it will eventually increase our country’s energy independence slightly.
But of far more importance, these politicians will be willing to trade support for more drilling for oil for allowing the go ahead for the support of renewables we so desperately need.
That Barack Obama understands this & was willing recently to say so publicly is one of the most encouraging pieces of news I’ve heard for a long time.
It’s NOT a statement by a weak man bowing to the popular view. It’s the statement of a skilled politician who shows me he has a shot at getting the changes we need done in place.
People ARE tired all over the country of divisive do nothing squabbles in Washington DC.
If his campaign can show that he wants MORE for Americans instead of less; that renewables will deliver more; & that Obama CAN put them in place if elected because of just this political skill, people will trust him MORE than they do McCain to help the economy.
And, that will get him elected.
But he’s not yet done this. And, if he fails to do it and do it well enough, I’m gravely concerned he will not be elected with frightening results and consequences for our economy & for us all.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-13-2008
As we have been posting about, the most important thing we can do to allow us to drive where we want to go and get everything we need shipped to stores, including food, at prices we will be able to afford is to dramatically increase our production of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.
(It looks like we should also increase our generation of electricity from nuclear power for the same reasons. But some people have reservations about doing so. And, renewables will work. Our position is that it will work faster and create a more reliable availability of electricity to do both. But whether we use more nuclear or not, we absolutely must use massive amounts of renewable sources and put them in place soon.)
Since a massive increase in our use of renewables has the potential to cut our demand for oil by well over 50 percent, this will also begin to drop the price of gasoline. And, it will begin to offer alternatives that cost LESS than gasoline. This will strengthen our economy in ways that a bit more domestic oil cannot even dream of doing.
It will also protect our economy for when oil simply begins to run out, which it will do at some point.
This process will take some amount of time to get into place. But it will work.
Unfortunately most Americans do not yet know this.
Meanwhile, doing more drilling for oil offshore and other places in the United States will both only provide enough oil to keep the price of gas from going up quite as fast. It will take a good bit of time to get online as well. And, the increased burning of oil that it will cause will worsen global warming.
So, it both has a negative effect on global warming AND has less than ten percent of the upside that adding massive renewable energy will have.
Apparently, most Americans do not yet know this either.:
Just a few days ago I found this polling result on the Rasmussen news item in the online news:
“Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) support going ahead with offshore oil drilling, an issue that John McCain seized on in early June as a way to help lower gas” (prices.)
And, it also said this:
“Forty-two percent (42%) said that offshore oil drilling would have the biggest impact in terms of reducing the price of oil -- a far higher percentage than believe that for several other options now being floated by the two major presidential candidates.”
& “Only 20% of Americans now oppose offshore drilling….”
This polling report also said this:
“By substantial margins, voters believe that the Republican candidate's top priority is finding new sources of energy while his Democratic opponent is more focused on reducing the amount of energy we consume.
Yet a separate survey found that for nearly two-thirds (65%), finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now use.”
This should be 100 percent in my view. Using less energy means a weaker economy and less buying power, personal freedom, and less economic security for everyone.
But by using massive amounts of new energy from renewables and retrofitting our economy to get more effective work done for less energy we will have a stronger economy with all the benefits that go with it. We will have MORE energy we get constructive use out of.
If we continue to rely on oil, the prices for the fuels made from it will continue to rise and our economy will remain at serious risk of collapse.
Of the two candidates, from what I’ve seen only Obama seems to know this & understand its implications.
Other than his proposal to increase nuclear power, John McCain is looking to simply continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration to ignore all this.
In my view, if we have 4 to 8 more years of this, we are headed for economic disaster.
So, in reality, Obama has by far the better take on what we need to protect our economy.
And, given the problems recently with our economy, that’s the issue that will decide the election.
But here’s the relevant results from the recent Rasmussen poll:
“… in terms of voter trust, other survey data shows that more voters now trust McCain over Obama on the energy issue.
Nationally the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very close race for the White House.”
This means that unless the Obama campaign can begin to show the American people that our economy is at even more risk than most people realize and that Obama truly wants to improve the economy – not just have everyone make do with less, and that there is massively MORE upside in his approach, he will very likely lose.
And, it looks to me that if the election were held now before this is done, he would lose.
The Obama campaign needs to get T Boone Pickens and his comment that this is a situation “we simply cannot drill ourselves out of” & the real proven, upside of his wind program wide publicity.
And, they can publicize information like this from the CEO of Nanosolar that shows the huge upside of powering electric cars with solar electricity.
“http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/
Going All-Electric
August 7, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO
The following is one of my favorite charts: A comparison of the distance a car can drive based on either of the following forms of energy, each produced on 100m x 100m of land (2.5 acres):
How come that biofuel does not really cut it? Electric cars are about four times more energy efficient than fuel based cars, no matter whether they are based on biofuel or other fuel. This is because any fuel engine mostly creates heat and thus wastes the majority of the available energy units. Combine this with plants not being very efficient solar energy harvesters relative to semiconductor based solar electricity, and the result is this huge difference.
In other words, it is clear that if the goal is to maximize energy efficiency, the end point to go after is all-electric cars everywhere. Moving all of transportation to all-electric would essentially cut in half our overall energy consumption while delivering the same distance.
I for one have vowed that the Prius I bought six years ago will have been the last fuel powered car I'd buy in my life. (Given that I may very well own the highest-mileage Prius on the planet, this probably reflects my confidence in the quality of this vehicle and the near-term readiness of electric car technology…) Presently, it is baking in the sun all day while I'm at work. My future all-electric car would charge up while idling under a solar carport.”
If the average American doesn’t know the upside of renewables and that it’s real and larger than the upside of drilling for more oil, Obama will lose.
And so will everyone in this country and in the world if our analysis is correct
The good news is that the politicians who believe we should drill for more oil are right about two things. It will give the public the feeling that everything possible is being done to reduce gas prices. And, it will eventually increase our country’s energy independence slightly.
But of far more importance, these politicians will be willing to trade support for more drilling for oil for allowing the go ahead for the support of renewables we so desperately need.
That Barack Obama understands this & was willing recently to say so publicly is one of the most encouraging pieces of news I’ve heard for a long time.
It’s NOT a statement by a weak man bowing to the popular view. It’s the statement of a skilled politician who shows me he has a shot at getting the changes we need done in place.
People ARE tired all over the country of divisive do nothing squabbles in Washington DC.
If his campaign can show that he wants MORE for Americans instead of less; that renewables will deliver more; & that Obama CAN put them in place if elected because of just this political skill, people will trust him MORE than they do McCain to help the economy.
And, that will get him elected.
But he’s not yet done this. And, if he fails to do it and do it well enough, I’m gravely concerned he will not be elected with frightening results and consequences for our economy & for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)