Very bad & some good news about coal....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-26-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
In addition, the United States will not be in as good a position as might be desirable when that happens. A recent story says that China has been buying oil supplies and reserves world wide and on a large scale.
So, taken together, it’s quite clear that we need to find ways to use much less oil without harming our economy and begin to really expedite doing so.
In part because of this and because of the increasing importance of electricity generation in our modern economy, in the United States and particularly in China, we have been burning a lot of coal to generate electricity and adding new coal burning plants.
This is releasing huge amounts of pollution from burning coal and is the largest single largest cause of global warming caused by increases in CO2 emissions.
And, in China, the increase in coal burning has been on such a large scale that it is causing serious health problems from particulates and is reducing sunlight enough to harm the potential for solar energy and to produce reduced agricultural yields.
Recently, I’ve gotten both some horribly bad and even frightening news and some much better and more promising news about coal.
Here’s the horribly bad and even frightening news first.:
In the health news in the last few days I saw a story twice that reported research that the inorganic mercury detected in women in their blood went from “two percent of women in the 1999-2000 study” to “30 percent of women studied in 2005-2006.”
And, one story noted that the rate of mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants was driving this by dramatically increasing the amount of mercury emissions into the atmosphere.
Since mercury tends to harm nerve development in unborn children and children as they grow up and to trigger mental decline in older people, this is an extremely serious concern.
The news that this problem got 15 times worse in just 7 years is truly scary.
Taken together, this set of facts means that our current method of burning coal is extremely undesirable. In fact, that may be an understatement!
At the same time, a huge part of our economy is now powered by the electricity we get by burning coal. And, we don’t yet have the renewable or even nuclear resources in place to substitute for it.
That literally puts us into a nearly no win situation. The status quo will ruin our health, our agriculture, and our ability to think and remember; but stopping all coal burning immediately would totally crash our economy world wide.
There has been some talk of sequestering CO2 by storing it underground. It is even being tried. And, in controlling the exhaust gases to do this, it may become considerably more economic to remove the particulate pollution and to sequester the mercury emissions than it would be if we weren’t adding this exhaust gas processing equipment necessary for sequestering CO2.
The bad news in that is that there is no guarantee the CO2 will stay underground without escaping; and we may simply not have enough places to store all the CO2 this method would need to store to be a real solution.
However, I’ve noted that it may be possible to use all the CO2 generated by burning coal to feed algae that would then be harvested to make biofuels and substitute for oil.
And, just as in the other kind of CO2 sequestration, in controlling the exhaust gases to do this, it may become considerably more economic to remove the particulate pollution and to sequester the mercury emissions than it would be if we weren’t adding this exhaust gas processing equipment necessary for sequestering CO2.
In fact, to protect the algae from being harmed, it may be mandatory to remove these pollutants before the exhaust reaches the algae.
Since we still would release the CO2 when those biofuels are burned, it’s clear to me that this would be a temporary solution.
But since we don’t yet have virtually every car and truck running as all electric vehicles or as plug-in hybrids, we still have quite a bit of coal, and we are running out of oil – plus we don’t yet have renewable and nuclear electricity generation in place sufficient to replace coal, it looks as if making biofuels with algae fed from the CO2 created by burning coal may be an extremely good near term solution.
This biofuel sequestration would solve several problems now while we await those changes. And, even better, its rapid, world-wide, and universal adoption would put a screeching halt to mercury and particulate pollution of our atmosphere.
That means that a proven way to covert CO2 from coal burning plants to biofuels using algae would be hugely valuable.
The much better and more promising news is that we may already have that under successful development.
While reviewing green energy stories listed in Nanosolar’s news section on its website, I found an article from the February 25, 2009 of Politico called, “Whither energy industry's Bill Gates?” written by Erika Lovley.
One of the parts of that story covered a very promising effort to make and begin to roll out biofuel sequestration of CO2.
A company called Ternion Bio Industries co-founded by Kyle McCue and Chris Schuring
recently built a full-scale industrial pilot reactor in California.
They just managed in time to lobby for stimulus funds for carbon capture and sequestration technology by using algae carbon capture to make biofuels.
The story then said this:
“With the help of stimulus funds, McCue estimates he can have a full carbon capture demonstration built in about 18 months that could capture nearly all the emissions of a mid-sized, coal-fired power plant.”
I then went to their website at: http://www.ternionbio.com & found this:
http://www.ternionbio.com/ternion-bios-technology //
"Closed-loop bioreactors are not subject to weather changes (heavy rain, snow, heat, freezing, etc.) or contamination (from pollution, rogue algae species or wind-borne contaminants)."
“Ternion Bio Industries has created a number of innovative technologies designed to optimize both maximum CO2 recycling capability and maximum algae output, while also operating significantly more cost-effectively and efficiently than other algae recycling systems.”
“For recycling greenhouse gases, Ternion Bio’s primary technology advances are contained in our Photo BioReactor.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Ternion Bio will be the number one company in this space when this industry is farther along or that rolling out using algae carbon capture to make biofuels world-wide and universally used can be done in 5 years as is needed.
But it does mean that at least one company sounds like it may be able to do the job. And, if that’s accurate and we follow up on it well, it will help enormously to clean up our air, use less petroleum for fuels, and reduce CO2 emissions. It will enable us to use oil more slowly; and it will help hold down the run up in oil and gasoline prices that we will have if it isn’t used.
It will enable us to more safely continue to burn coal to make electricity while we do not yet have substitutes in place. Lastly, it will help preserve the jobs and economies in regions that mine coal and soften the transition for them. And, it will have similar value for the coal companies.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Misguided politics & some favorable politics ….
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-19-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
In addition, the United States will not be in as good a position as might be desirable when that happens. A recent story says that China has been buying oil supplies and reserves world wide and on a large scale.
So, taken together, it’s quite clear that we need to find ways to use much less oil without harming our economy and begin to really expedite doing so.
In the long run, cap & trade or other methods of adding taxes to oil, coal, and other fossil fuels or beginning to withdraw subsidies, all of which will add to the cost of using these fuels will speed up this process.
It’s also clear that this needs to start very slowly while such increased costs will be applied to most of the energy used by our economy.
Lastly, it’s quite clear that the largest priority needs to be to add massive amounts of renewable energy and ways to substitute it for energy from fossil fuels.
The Clean Economy Network sends out an email with regular updates on clean energy related government actions and debates.
The most recent one yesterday had some very bad news and some very good news.
Here’s the bad news:
"Energy & Climate Reform Opponents Take Cues From Health Care Reform Foes to Manufacture "Grassroots" Opposition.
Having observed the tactics deployed by opponents of health care reform, the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, and others are funding rallies in 20 states during the August Congressional recess. The groups have founded EnergyCitizens, which is warning that "Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain."
Discussing the rallies, the Washington reports that the American Petroleum Institute is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend the rallies to put "a human face" on opposition to energy reform."
Instead of putting their money into lobbying for well thought out ways to minimize the initial economic impact of the different ways of putting the brakes on fossil fuel consumption and on how to actually make money from helping to build the alternatives needed, the Petroleum industry is trying to use it’s influence to disrupt the process entirely. Even worse they are doing it in a way that usually causes more friction and negative fallout than useful compromises.
I think this is extremely bad management on the parts of the companies involved.
It’s similar to taking their shareholder’s money to hurl insults at an oncoming tsunami while spending no money – or far too little money -- on getting out of its way or harnessing its power.
In the early stages of the switchover from sailing ships to steam powered ships, the Clipper ships were a very elegant and successful design that represented the state of the art in sailing ships. The steam ships were klutzy and were often dangerous and somewhat unreliable.
But the underlying fact was that once steam ships evolved just a bit more, Clipper ships became obsolete.
The ship builders who stuck with only building Clipper ships and other sailing ships went out of business while the ship builders who began work on building the best steam powered ships they could survived and often prospered.
Would it have helped if the sailing ship builders had set up pressure groups to try to ban steam ships?
Nope. Even had they succeeded, steam ships built in other countries would have taken over their markets anyway.
The management analyst Peter Drucker points out that a classic cause of failure in once successful companies is to focus all the resources of their company on defending and supporting the old and once successful product even after it begins to decline while starving their efforts to profit from the growing opportunities in the products that are beginning to take over the market.
He points out that all too often, the money spent to support “yesterday’s bread” winds up being mostly wasted. Then when the company needs to transition to “tomorrow’s bread”, too little has been invested in it to work & the company fails.
Having grown up in an area where I benefitted from the success of the oil companies of that day as everyone who lived there did, I’d much rather the oil companies redefined themselves as energy companies that began in oil and started making much greater efforts to become part of the new energy economy and completely stop trying to save the waning part of their business.
I’d much rather they continue to prosper. But if they persist in acting like clueless fools, they won’t make it.
The very good news in the Clean Economy Network email yesterday was this.:
"Democratic Senators Move to Disentangle Climate & Energy Aspects of Legislation. The Business Insider reports that a group of Democratic senators led by Sen. Blanch Lincoln (D-AR) recommends cleaving energy legislation from cap-and-trade provisions and passing a bill this year that establishes only a renewable energy mandate.”
Since the very clear priority is to add massive amounts of renewable energy and ways to substitute it for energy from fossil fuels, regardless of how cap & trade turns out, a bill that focuses on creating much more renewable energy and that alone would be very valuable.
And, since the wasted heat and hassle apparently now being generated plus the very legitimate concerns of starting cap & trade very slowly until we have more renewable energy in place to switch to will result in no cap & trade bill or one that is both too harsh in some ways and way too little, too late in others, having a strong & separate bill mandating much more renewable energy would make the probable bad or no cap & trade bill much more safe and OK.
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-19-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
In addition, the United States will not be in as good a position as might be desirable when that happens. A recent story says that China has been buying oil supplies and reserves world wide and on a large scale.
So, taken together, it’s quite clear that we need to find ways to use much less oil without harming our economy and begin to really expedite doing so.
In the long run, cap & trade or other methods of adding taxes to oil, coal, and other fossil fuels or beginning to withdraw subsidies, all of which will add to the cost of using these fuels will speed up this process.
It’s also clear that this needs to start very slowly while such increased costs will be applied to most of the energy used by our economy.
Lastly, it’s quite clear that the largest priority needs to be to add massive amounts of renewable energy and ways to substitute it for energy from fossil fuels.
The Clean Economy Network sends out an email with regular updates on clean energy related government actions and debates.
The most recent one yesterday had some very bad news and some very good news.
Here’s the bad news:
"Energy & Climate Reform Opponents Take Cues From Health Care Reform Foes to Manufacture "Grassroots" Opposition.
Having observed the tactics deployed by opponents of health care reform, the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, and others are funding rallies in 20 states during the August Congressional recess. The groups have founded EnergyCitizens, which is warning that "Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain."
Discussing the rallies, the Washington reports that the American Petroleum Institute is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend the rallies to put "a human face" on opposition to energy reform."
Instead of putting their money into lobbying for well thought out ways to minimize the initial economic impact of the different ways of putting the brakes on fossil fuel consumption and on how to actually make money from helping to build the alternatives needed, the Petroleum industry is trying to use it’s influence to disrupt the process entirely. Even worse they are doing it in a way that usually causes more friction and negative fallout than useful compromises.
I think this is extremely bad management on the parts of the companies involved.
It’s similar to taking their shareholder’s money to hurl insults at an oncoming tsunami while spending no money – or far too little money -- on getting out of its way or harnessing its power.
In the early stages of the switchover from sailing ships to steam powered ships, the Clipper ships were a very elegant and successful design that represented the state of the art in sailing ships. The steam ships were klutzy and were often dangerous and somewhat unreliable.
But the underlying fact was that once steam ships evolved just a bit more, Clipper ships became obsolete.
The ship builders who stuck with only building Clipper ships and other sailing ships went out of business while the ship builders who began work on building the best steam powered ships they could survived and often prospered.
Would it have helped if the sailing ship builders had set up pressure groups to try to ban steam ships?
Nope. Even had they succeeded, steam ships built in other countries would have taken over their markets anyway.
The management analyst Peter Drucker points out that a classic cause of failure in once successful companies is to focus all the resources of their company on defending and supporting the old and once successful product even after it begins to decline while starving their efforts to profit from the growing opportunities in the products that are beginning to take over the market.
He points out that all too often, the money spent to support “yesterday’s bread” winds up being mostly wasted. Then when the company needs to transition to “tomorrow’s bread”, too little has been invested in it to work & the company fails.
Having grown up in an area where I benefitted from the success of the oil companies of that day as everyone who lived there did, I’d much rather the oil companies redefined themselves as energy companies that began in oil and started making much greater efforts to become part of the new energy economy and completely stop trying to save the waning part of their business.
I’d much rather they continue to prosper. But if they persist in acting like clueless fools, they won’t make it.
The very good news in the Clean Economy Network email yesterday was this.:
"Democratic Senators Move to Disentangle Climate & Energy Aspects of Legislation. The Business Insider reports that a group of Democratic senators led by Sen. Blanch Lincoln (D-AR) recommends cleaving energy legislation from cap-and-trade provisions and passing a bill this year that establishes only a renewable energy mandate.”
Since the very clear priority is to add massive amounts of renewable energy and ways to substitute it for energy from fossil fuels, regardless of how cap & trade turns out, a bill that focuses on creating much more renewable energy and that alone would be very valuable.
And, since the wasted heat and hassle apparently now being generated plus the very legitimate concerns of starting cap & trade very slowly until we have more renewable energy in place to switch to will result in no cap & trade bill or one that is both too harsh in some ways and way too little, too late in others, having a strong & separate bill mandating much more renewable energy would make the probable bad or no cap & trade bill much more safe and OK.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Renewable energy & electric transport....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-12-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
Electricity generated by solar or wind power or by using heat from geothermal energy to generate electricity AND electricity generated by nuclear power all avoid releasing CO2 and using oil.
(If coal to generate electricity can be burned in a way that allows the CO2 to be sequestered or converted to biofuel that also would replace oil and allow for more electric transport. Very soon electricity generated from coal and nuclear will cost more than from solar and wind. But now it may cost slightly less; and clean coal and nuclear will need less new transmission lines as they are or can be located next to existing transmission lines.)
That puts a very high premium on electric and/or plug-in hybrid cars and trucks and on electrically powered mass transit and trains.
And to build such cars and trucks and to allow electricity needed but not currently being generated by wind or solar or to allow excess electricity generated by wind or solar at other times to be stored all require reliable, fast charging, batteries that tend not to wear out or to require replacement only after extended use.
Also, for transport, having light and compact batteries is very important.
From large companies such as SONY to smaller startups such as Tesla and Imara Corporation in the Silicon Valley and in other parts of the world, many companies are working on such improved battery technology. (Mobile electronic devices share similar battery needs with the battery needs of electric transport. So battery advances for either use may well be used by the other use as well.) We may also see the use of combinations of capacitors that can be very rapidly charged and discharged with relatively faster discharging and charging batteries that are changed more often with batteries that discharge and charge more slowly but last far longer.
In addition, the electricity for this transport will begin to need more electricity generation which increases the need for a massive increase in solar and wind and new smart grid transmission lines to connect these new sources to users. In the earlier stages this need will fortunately be less acute since car batteries in electric cars and plug in hybrids can be charged at hours of the day other uses tend to be at their lowest so existing generation capacity can be used.
Tesla, with its good looking model S all electric sedan and GM with its plug in hybrid Volt are pioneering this market. But in the same way most car companies now make hybrid cars, soon most car companies will make all electric cars or plug-in hybrids or both.
So, it looks like the market for batteries to go in these cars looks like it will be very, very big within 2 to 5 years and then grow even more.
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-12-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
Electricity generated by solar or wind power or by using heat from geothermal energy to generate electricity AND electricity generated by nuclear power all avoid releasing CO2 and using oil.
(If coal to generate electricity can be burned in a way that allows the CO2 to be sequestered or converted to biofuel that also would replace oil and allow for more electric transport. Very soon electricity generated from coal and nuclear will cost more than from solar and wind. But now it may cost slightly less; and clean coal and nuclear will need less new transmission lines as they are or can be located next to existing transmission lines.)
That puts a very high premium on electric and/or plug-in hybrid cars and trucks and on electrically powered mass transit and trains.
And to build such cars and trucks and to allow electricity needed but not currently being generated by wind or solar or to allow excess electricity generated by wind or solar at other times to be stored all require reliable, fast charging, batteries that tend not to wear out or to require replacement only after extended use.
Also, for transport, having light and compact batteries is very important.
From large companies such as SONY to smaller startups such as Tesla and Imara Corporation in the Silicon Valley and in other parts of the world, many companies are working on such improved battery technology. (Mobile electronic devices share similar battery needs with the battery needs of electric transport. So battery advances for either use may well be used by the other use as well.) We may also see the use of combinations of capacitors that can be very rapidly charged and discharged with relatively faster discharging and charging batteries that are changed more often with batteries that discharge and charge more slowly but last far longer.
In addition, the electricity for this transport will begin to need more electricity generation which increases the need for a massive increase in solar and wind and new smart grid transmission lines to connect these new sources to users. In the earlier stages this need will fortunately be less acute since car batteries in electric cars and plug in hybrids can be charged at hours of the day other uses tend to be at their lowest so existing generation capacity can be used.
Tesla, with its good looking model S all electric sedan and GM with its plug in hybrid Volt are pioneering this market. But in the same way most car companies now make hybrid cars, soon most car companies will make all electric cars or plug-in hybrids or both.
So, it looks like the market for batteries to go in these cars looks like it will be very, very big within 2 to 5 years and then grow even more.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Renewable energy & oil replacements are critically needed now....
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-5-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
OR, we can massively increase our supply of renewable energy and other replacements for petroleum fast enough to avoid that problem crashing the world’s economy.
That clearly was going to become extremely important at some point.
A recent analysis suggests that we may either be at that point right now or we will be within 10 years.
Last Sunday AFP online news had this story.:
“ A disastrous energy crunch is looming because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading economist warned…..”
The chief economist for the International Energy Agency, said that as soon as 5 years from now that might stop the recovery from the current world wide recession.
As the economy recovers, demand will go up; & if he’s correct that global oil production will begin to peak in 5 years and then peak in 10 years, the price of oil, hit by both slightly lower supply or inability of supply to increase plus rising demand may cause a very sharp run up in prices.
Mr Birol said he believes that oil is running out faster than previously predicted; and peak oil production will occur in 10 years, at least 10 years earlier than previous forecasts.
He said that "….we have to leave oil before oil leaves us….”
He also said
"The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil….”.
He said that just in the last two years it looks as if many of the world’s largest fields of oil have already hit peak production. That suggests his analysis may be correct.
So, we need to make a lot of progress fast in many areas!:
1. Clearly we continue to need a massive effort to increase solar and wind generated electricity and accelerate building plug-in hybrid and all electric cars. But this forecast suggests we need to at least triple the amount of emphasis we put on that now.
2. It certainly looks like we now know what we can do with the coal we no longer should be burning to generate electricity. We need to be using it plus massive amounts of biofuels to make substitutes for gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel to keep our existing economy going until biofuels and renewable energy can do the job.
3. A separate story came out this week stating that by burning coal while trapping and storing the CO2 released and more nuclear power would lower the dollar costs of the energy source transition.
Given the very high dollar costs:
to mine coal if we stop mining it in ways that destroy the communities near where it’s mined and to do this “sequestration” of CO2;
& to fully fund enough extremely reliable security for new nuclear plants,
…I think this hope of reduced costs from these two sources is simply & totally wrong. In fact it may well cost somewhat more.
BUT, given how much new energy we need and how fast we now look to need it, the conclusion that we need to use coal while sequestering the CO2 and to increase our use of electricity from nuclear reactors IN ADDITION to massive increases in renewable energy is quite correct.
4. We clearly also need to replace gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel from petroleum to keep our existing economy going until renewable energy can do much more of the job -- with the energy and cost efficient production of biofuels from algae and from non-food plant sources that avoid cutting down forests or displacing food crops.
In conclusion, his forecast, which may well be correct, means that government policy needs to do much more in this area; and the immediate potential for venture capital for clean tech energy investments is far larger than we might have imagined.
Today's post: Wednesday, 8-5-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
OR, we can massively increase our supply of renewable energy and other replacements for petroleum fast enough to avoid that problem crashing the world’s economy.
That clearly was going to become extremely important at some point.
A recent analysis suggests that we may either be at that point right now or we will be within 10 years.
Last Sunday AFP online news had this story.:
“ A disastrous energy crunch is looming because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading economist warned…..”
The chief economist for the International Energy Agency, said that as soon as 5 years from now that might stop the recovery from the current world wide recession.
As the economy recovers, demand will go up; & if he’s correct that global oil production will begin to peak in 5 years and then peak in 10 years, the price of oil, hit by both slightly lower supply or inability of supply to increase plus rising demand may cause a very sharp run up in prices.
Mr Birol said he believes that oil is running out faster than previously predicted; and peak oil production will occur in 10 years, at least 10 years earlier than previous forecasts.
He said that "….we have to leave oil before oil leaves us….”
He also said
"The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil….”.
He said that just in the last two years it looks as if many of the world’s largest fields of oil have already hit peak production. That suggests his analysis may be correct.
So, we need to make a lot of progress fast in many areas!:
1. Clearly we continue to need a massive effort to increase solar and wind generated electricity and accelerate building plug-in hybrid and all electric cars. But this forecast suggests we need to at least triple the amount of emphasis we put on that now.
2. It certainly looks like we now know what we can do with the coal we no longer should be burning to generate electricity. We need to be using it plus massive amounts of biofuels to make substitutes for gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel to keep our existing economy going until biofuels and renewable energy can do the job.
3. A separate story came out this week stating that by burning coal while trapping and storing the CO2 released and more nuclear power would lower the dollar costs of the energy source transition.
Given the very high dollar costs:
to mine coal if we stop mining it in ways that destroy the communities near where it’s mined and to do this “sequestration” of CO2;
& to fully fund enough extremely reliable security for new nuclear plants,
…I think this hope of reduced costs from these two sources is simply & totally wrong. In fact it may well cost somewhat more.
BUT, given how much new energy we need and how fast we now look to need it, the conclusion that we need to use coal while sequestering the CO2 and to increase our use of electricity from nuclear reactors IN ADDITION to massive increases in renewable energy is quite correct.
4. We clearly also need to replace gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel from petroleum to keep our existing economy going until renewable energy can do much more of the job -- with the energy and cost efficient production of biofuels from algae and from non-food plant sources that avoid cutting down forests or displacing food crops.
In conclusion, his forecast, which may well be correct, means that government policy needs to do much more in this area; and the immediate potential for venture capital for clean tech energy investments is far larger than we might have imagined.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How businesses can profit from renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-29-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, because of the cost of renewable energy gradually dropping from new technologies and economies of scale and the cost for fossil fuels continuing eventually to go up for several reasons, those companies that get most of their energy from renewable sources will be more profitable and have a more stable and reliable energy supply than those that don’t.
Even better, there are a set of things that companies can do to begin to install and profit from renewable energy now.
Right now renewable energy and electricity still costs more than it does when you get it from fossil fuels.
But, because most companies have so many ways to save energy or become more energy efficient or both and because these actions tend to produce more savings each year after they are put into practice than they cost initially, companies can do those things AND add more renewable energy and still wind up with annual savings NOW.
Adobe in San Jose decided to simply do everything in its HQ building that current technology allowed to save energy. They did have to invest $1,000,000; & some of the energy saving methods were a bit less pleasant than what they had before. But the ANNUAL savings on their energy bill were also $1,000,000!
That’s a 100% per year return on their investment.
So, if a company does similar things, it can then also afford to add solar cells now out of those savings without having to increase their energy costs.
Then, when fossil fuels go up in price while their solar installation is already paid for and the sun is powering it, compared to their competitors who have not done these things who will have soaring energy bills, they will be far ahead.
Identify what your energy uses are now. Then look for ways to build in systems and new procedures that prevent energy from being used that is simply wasted now; find more energy efficient systems for all the useful ways that you use energy that you can and install them.
Watch for new technologies and new products to do this.
For example, most businesses tend to use fluorescent lights now instead of incandescent lights which already cuts energy use about 4 to one. But when they become available -- which is just barely beginning to happen, LED lights both use about a third of the electricity as fluorescent lights and have to be replaced far less often which also saves money.
A second major way to save money in facilities where air conditioning is used is to do more things to prevent the heat of the summer from getting into the building. It’s pretty straight forward. If only half as much heat gets in as used to get in, you will only need half as much air conditioning. In some cases painting the roof or south side of the building white or putting solar cells there which have a bit of insulation in their backing will do this. In some cases there will be a space under the roof as there is with houses with peaked roofs which can be vented instead of becoming a solar heater to keep heat out of the building. And well designed and placed window awnings can help keep summer heat out of the building as well.
Also, if you also get some of your cooling done early in the morning, a well insulated building will then still be cool in the afternoon. And that cooling will both be more efficient with the cooler outside temperatures of the early morning AND the electricity you use from the grid will cost less by using it at this nonpeak time.
Then if you also get your electricity from solar cells on the roof of your facility AND solar cells on a canopy over the company parking lot if it’s out in the open instead of under the building, all or much of the electricity you use during the times of peak demand in the afternoon when grid electricity costs the most will come from your own facility instead.
(That kind of canopy over the parking lot that’s covered with solar panels also has two other benefits to your employees. During rainy weather they and their important papers and electronic equipment will get rained on a lot less while getting into and our of their cars. And, in hot and sunny weather they will be more comfortable and have lower fuel bill for their cars which will then need less use of their air conditioners.)
In many businesses, they can get more solar panels on a canopy or set of canopies over their parking lot than they can on the roof of their facility. So, by doing both, they can provide a much larger percentage of their electricity themselves from their solar cells than they would have by just putting them on the roof.
For shopping centers and many larger businesses, such canopies can make a really BIG difference.
Lastly, there are now many programs at local colleges and universities that are training students to help businesses find and implement these kinds of changes including some that use MBA students. And, increasingly, there are businesses now that do this. Some simply charge a fee. Others will do it free or waive the fee if you get a bid for their particular energy saving service or buy it.
The bottom line is that most businesses can do more now than they realize or are doing.
And those that begin to do it now, will gain an edge as fossil fuels go up in price and/or become more unreliable in their availability.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-29-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, because of the cost of renewable energy gradually dropping from new technologies and economies of scale and the cost for fossil fuels continuing eventually to go up for several reasons, those companies that get most of their energy from renewable sources will be more profitable and have a more stable and reliable energy supply than those that don’t.
Even better, there are a set of things that companies can do to begin to install and profit from renewable energy now.
Right now renewable energy and electricity still costs more than it does when you get it from fossil fuels.
But, because most companies have so many ways to save energy or become more energy efficient or both and because these actions tend to produce more savings each year after they are put into practice than they cost initially, companies can do those things AND add more renewable energy and still wind up with annual savings NOW.
Adobe in San Jose decided to simply do everything in its HQ building that current technology allowed to save energy. They did have to invest $1,000,000; & some of the energy saving methods were a bit less pleasant than what they had before. But the ANNUAL savings on their energy bill were also $1,000,000!
That’s a 100% per year return on their investment.
So, if a company does similar things, it can then also afford to add solar cells now out of those savings without having to increase their energy costs.
Then, when fossil fuels go up in price while their solar installation is already paid for and the sun is powering it, compared to their competitors who have not done these things who will have soaring energy bills, they will be far ahead.
Identify what your energy uses are now. Then look for ways to build in systems and new procedures that prevent energy from being used that is simply wasted now; find more energy efficient systems for all the useful ways that you use energy that you can and install them.
Watch for new technologies and new products to do this.
For example, most businesses tend to use fluorescent lights now instead of incandescent lights which already cuts energy use about 4 to one. But when they become available -- which is just barely beginning to happen, LED lights both use about a third of the electricity as fluorescent lights and have to be replaced far less often which also saves money.
A second major way to save money in facilities where air conditioning is used is to do more things to prevent the heat of the summer from getting into the building. It’s pretty straight forward. If only half as much heat gets in as used to get in, you will only need half as much air conditioning. In some cases painting the roof or south side of the building white or putting solar cells there which have a bit of insulation in their backing will do this. In some cases there will be a space under the roof as there is with houses with peaked roofs which can be vented instead of becoming a solar heater to keep heat out of the building. And well designed and placed window awnings can help keep summer heat out of the building as well.
Also, if you also get some of your cooling done early in the morning, a well insulated building will then still be cool in the afternoon. And that cooling will both be more efficient with the cooler outside temperatures of the early morning AND the electricity you use from the grid will cost less by using it at this nonpeak time.
Then if you also get your electricity from solar cells on the roof of your facility AND solar cells on a canopy over the company parking lot if it’s out in the open instead of under the building, all or much of the electricity you use during the times of peak demand in the afternoon when grid electricity costs the most will come from your own facility instead.
(That kind of canopy over the parking lot that’s covered with solar panels also has two other benefits to your employees. During rainy weather they and their important papers and electronic equipment will get rained on a lot less while getting into and our of their cars. And, in hot and sunny weather they will be more comfortable and have lower fuel bill for their cars which will then need less use of their air conditioners.)
In many businesses, they can get more solar panels on a canopy or set of canopies over their parking lot than they can on the roof of their facility. So, by doing both, they can provide a much larger percentage of their electricity themselves from their solar cells than they would have by just putting them on the roof.
For shopping centers and many larger businesses, such canopies can make a really BIG difference.
Lastly, there are now many programs at local colleges and universities that are training students to help businesses find and implement these kinds of changes including some that use MBA students. And, increasingly, there are businesses now that do this. Some simply charge a fee. Others will do it free or waive the fee if you get a bid for their particular energy saving service or buy it.
The bottom line is that most businesses can do more now than they realize or are doing.
And those that begin to do it now, will gain an edge as fossil fuels go up in price and/or become more unreliable in their availability.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Why legislate for clean energy?....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-22-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
One way to do this is to pass nationwide legislation that helps cause these changes to happen. The congress of the United States is considering such legislation now.
“….the Center for American Progress has offered twelve reasons to support clean energy legislation. See http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/dozen_reasons.html/index.html .
The brief article provides data with supporting documentation, as well as a diverse list of ACES supporters.”
Here are the twelve reasons from the article. I’ll add my comments after the article.
“A Dozen Reasons for Clean Energy
By Daniel J. Weiss, Erica Goad | July 20, 2009
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently announced that she plans to introduce her version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, immediately following August recess. “The bill will be introduced when we get back,” Sen. Boxer told reporters. “We're going to use the extra time we have to make it the best it can be.”
And what will that bill look like when she introduces her version of the bill? Sen. Boxer was coy, telling E&E News only saying that “I think the majority of the allocations will be spelled out,” meaning that the bill would have a distribution plan for the pollution allowances for ratepayer rebates, trade sensitive industries, and other recipients.
The House of Representatives in late June passed its clean-energy jobs and global warming bill. It would require utilities to generate electricity from the wind, sun and other renewable sources, reduce energy demand via efficiency, and require all major emitters of greenhouse gases to buy an allowance for every ton of pollution they emit. It is essential that the Senate follows the lead of the House by swiftly enacting comprehensive clean energy legislation to create jobs, cut our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and reduce pollution to protect our planet.
To help focus the Senate on the importance of Sen. Boxer’s forthcoming legislation, here are 12 key reasons why the Senate should act on the House passed American Clean Energy and Security Act.
1. It would create 1.7 million new jobs
The legislation would create 1.7 million new jobs by unlocking billions of dollars in industry and public investment because of measures included in the House legislation and the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to a recent University of Massachusetts report sponsored by CAP, these job gains would be enough to reduce the unemployment rate in today’s economy by about one full percentage point. John Doerr, one of the nation’s leading venture capitalists, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: “These policies are straightforward; we've seen them work in states and in other countries. In Denmark, policies, including prices on carbon and building and appliance efficiency standards, have made a huge difference since 1970. It started their wind industry. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark. And Denmark’s energy technology exports were more than $10 billion. That’s from a country with a smaller population than Missouri, Tennessee or Michigan. It has resulted in jobs; last year, the unemployment rate in Denmark last year was only 2 percent.”
2. It would reduce oil use
According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy the House bill would save at least 240 million barrels annually of oil. Since our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, reducing oil use would not only be better for the environment but for the safety of the American people.
3. It would reduce electric bills
The Environmental Protection Agency determined recently that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would lead to a 7 percent decline in electric bills due to energy efficiency measures by 2020. The report noted that “increased energy efficiency and reduced energy demand simultaneously reduces primary energy needs by 7 percent in 2020, 10 percent in 2030, and 12 percent in 2050.” By 2020, the efficiency standards in the bill would save consumers $29 billion. The average family would save $84 per year in lower electricity bills. This means that consumers would be spending comparatively less on their utility bills simply because the houses they live in would be less wasteful.
4. It provides special protection for low-income households
The Congressional Budget Office projects that households with an average income of $18,000–in the lowest income quintile–would see an average net benefit of $40 annually by 2020. The clean-energy legislation would also sell some pollution allowances and use the money to provide additional assistance to low income households to help pay for their energy bills if necessary.
5. It would cost the average household a postage stamp per day
The cost of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade program would ultimately amount to an average of $175 per household annually, or about the cost of a postage stamp per day. Along with this estimate, the CBO emphasized that the figure “includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.”
6. It would spur investments in clean energy
A number of large energy companies including Exelon Corp., Symantec Corp., PSEG Inc., and others support the American Clean Energy and Security Act “because certainty and clear rules of the road enable us to plan, build and innovate our businesses. It would drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and would create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy."
Inducements to invest include a nationwide renewable energy standard that requires energy companies to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020, and requires utilities to reduce electricity demand by 5 percent via efficiency measures. The legislation also provides a total of $190 billion through 2025 for investments in clean energy, efficiency programs and deployment of top-notch energy technologies.
7. It would create new income streams for farmers
There is great potential to generate clean energy in rural areas. The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income, and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades. Leasing land for a single utility-scale wind turbine could provide a farmer with about $3,000 a year in income.
According to Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases of Colorado State notes that “increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity…while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The Energy Information Administration has estimated the value of agricultural offsets to be close to $24 billion annually. Farmers have the ability to reap benefits from leasing their land and from agricultural carbon offsets. For example, a new 107-megawatt wind farm in Minnesota yielded $500,000 per year in lease payments to farmers.
8. It would protect farmers from energy-related price increases
Agriculture is exempt from the greenhouse gas pollution reduction requirements in H.R. 2454. It also includes a provision to aid farmers should they face a reduction in purchasing power due to higher energy costs (see Title IV, Section 432 of the House bill). Under the bill, rural residents so affected would become eligible for monthly cash refunds.
9. It would protect energy intensive, trade-sensitive industries
The American Clean Energy and Security Act allocates 15 percent of its pollution allowances to industries that use significant amounts of energy and face international competition. This provision would protect them from competition from lower cost imports from countries that do not have greenhouse gas pollution reduction programs. This includes the cement, paper, chemical, aluminum, and steel industries. Estimated total value of the near-term allocation pool is around $100 billion by 2020, with the allowances for trade-sensitive industries consisting of $13 billion by 2020.
10. It would cut greenhouse gas pollution
The 17 percent reduction in carbon pollution required by 2020 would cut 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 compared to inaction. Removing that much carbon is comparable to taking 500 million cars off the road, which is twice the number of U.S. cars today, and half the cars expected in the world in 2020.
The bill would shrink deforestation as well, which is essential because tropical forests help to absorb greenhouse gas pollution and remove atmospheric carbon. A small percentage of emissions allowances are set aside for projects in other countries that would reduce deforestation. The EPA estimates that the allowances to reduce deforestation would reduce pollution by one billion tons annually by 2015—equivalent to taking over 200 million cars off the road.
11. It would create a safety net for displaced workers
In the unfortunate event that some workers lose their jobs in high polluting industries, the bill has a $150 million workforce retraining program (Title IV, Subtitle B in the House bill). A worker can also petition the Secretary of Labor for payment of 70 percent of lost wages for three years, as well as job training, and health care premium payments.
This program is similar to the one in the Clean Air Act of 1990. This program authorized $250 million annually to the Job Training Partnership Act to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to demand reductions for high sulfur coal, which was responsible for acid rain pollution. Actual job losses were 75 percent lower than predicted, with a grand total of 2,363 people applying for aid so program costs were much lower. This would likely occur under the greenhouse gas pollution reduction program, but it is important to provide this safety for those who may be affected.
12. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is widely supported
Nuclear power companies, a civil rights organization, and a utility trade association have little in common. Yet the Nuclear Energy Institute, the NAACP, and the Edison Electric Institute all support prompt comprehensive action to create clean energy, reduce oil use, and cut carbon pollution."
X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
1. 1.7 million jobs is just the tip of the iceberg. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, renewable energy will soon be less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses. Once that happens, 8.5 million jobs or more is more likely within 15 years.
2. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, we will not only use less fossil fuels than we would have used, we’ll use less than we do now.
Then once renewable energy becomes less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses, we will use enough less to import less or even no oil at all and stop burning coal in a way that releases CO2 and other health harmful pollution.
3. 4. & 5.
In the short run, increases to utility bills may be more than this estimate. But programs for low income taxpayers will help. It will cost money to build new powerlines and smart grid components and both small scale and massive renewable energy installations.
But it won’t be excessive either.
But the much better news is that once a lot of this new infrastructure is built, utility bills will then be as much as half or a third of what they otherwise would have cost had we not switched to renewable energy. In addition, we will be spending much less fighting the consequences of global warming and have an economy strong enough to support paying the costs we do have.
The alternative, I think, is to face economic collapse that would ensue otherwise when we would have soaring energy costs, very high expenses to fight global warming, and a weak economy all at the same time.
Personally, I don’t think that scenario is a prudent choice. Slowing fossil fuel use a bit initially and building massive amounts of renewable energy will prevent that scenario.
Legislation that accelerates that set of actions is critically important because of this.
6. & 7. are true. Building this new infrastructure on a large scale will attract investments and give both entrepreneurs and many farmers a real shot at making more money than they do now. One building renewable energy pays well and new renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel based energy, that will really take off. At that point the needed changes will become self sustaining and speed up.
8. 9. & 11. show the current thinking is to minimize the negative impact of making these changes. It remains to be seen how effective this will be. But if good faith efforts are made from the outset, it will help.
10. Yes it will slow global warming and reduce the costs of it below what it otherwise would have been. That extra time may enable us to keep our ability to grow food and keep our coastal cities where we might have not been able to do so otherwise.
Taking a decent shot we’ll be able to do that is far better than giving up and for sure losing those two battles.
12. Anyone who sees the grave consequences of failing to do this supports it. And, of course people and companies who will benefit support it.
The interesting thing is that some large companies with unusually good management in place are beginning to support it.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-22-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
One way to do this is to pass nationwide legislation that helps cause these changes to happen. The congress of the United States is considering such legislation now.
“….the Center for American Progress has offered twelve reasons to support clean energy legislation. See http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/dozen_reasons.html/index.html .
The brief article provides data with supporting documentation, as well as a diverse list of ACES supporters.”
Here are the twelve reasons from the article. I’ll add my comments after the article.
“A Dozen Reasons for Clean Energy
By Daniel J. Weiss, Erica Goad | July 20, 2009
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently announced that she plans to introduce her version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, immediately following August recess. “The bill will be introduced when we get back,” Sen. Boxer told reporters. “We're going to use the extra time we have to make it the best it can be.”
And what will that bill look like when she introduces her version of the bill? Sen. Boxer was coy, telling E&E News only saying that “I think the majority of the allocations will be spelled out,” meaning that the bill would have a distribution plan for the pollution allowances for ratepayer rebates, trade sensitive industries, and other recipients.
The House of Representatives in late June passed its clean-energy jobs and global warming bill. It would require utilities to generate electricity from the wind, sun and other renewable sources, reduce energy demand via efficiency, and require all major emitters of greenhouse gases to buy an allowance for every ton of pollution they emit. It is essential that the Senate follows the lead of the House by swiftly enacting comprehensive clean energy legislation to create jobs, cut our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and reduce pollution to protect our planet.
To help focus the Senate on the importance of Sen. Boxer’s forthcoming legislation, here are 12 key reasons why the Senate should act on the House passed American Clean Energy and Security Act.
1. It would create 1.7 million new jobs
The legislation would create 1.7 million new jobs by unlocking billions of dollars in industry and public investment because of measures included in the House legislation and the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to a recent University of Massachusetts report sponsored by CAP, these job gains would be enough to reduce the unemployment rate in today’s economy by about one full percentage point. John Doerr, one of the nation’s leading venture capitalists, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: “These policies are straightforward; we've seen them work in states and in other countries. In Denmark, policies, including prices on carbon and building and appliance efficiency standards, have made a huge difference since 1970. It started their wind industry. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark. And Denmark’s energy technology exports were more than $10 billion. That’s from a country with a smaller population than Missouri, Tennessee or Michigan. It has resulted in jobs; last year, the unemployment rate in Denmark last year was only 2 percent.”
2. It would reduce oil use
According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy the House bill would save at least 240 million barrels annually of oil. Since our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, reducing oil use would not only be better for the environment but for the safety of the American people.
3. It would reduce electric bills
The Environmental Protection Agency determined recently that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would lead to a 7 percent decline in electric bills due to energy efficiency measures by 2020. The report noted that “increased energy efficiency and reduced energy demand simultaneously reduces primary energy needs by 7 percent in 2020, 10 percent in 2030, and 12 percent in 2050.” By 2020, the efficiency standards in the bill would save consumers $29 billion. The average family would save $84 per year in lower electricity bills. This means that consumers would be spending comparatively less on their utility bills simply because the houses they live in would be less wasteful.
4. It provides special protection for low-income households
The Congressional Budget Office projects that households with an average income of $18,000–in the lowest income quintile–would see an average net benefit of $40 annually by 2020. The clean-energy legislation would also sell some pollution allowances and use the money to provide additional assistance to low income households to help pay for their energy bills if necessary.
5. It would cost the average household a postage stamp per day
The cost of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade program would ultimately amount to an average of $175 per household annually, or about the cost of a postage stamp per day. Along with this estimate, the CBO emphasized that the figure “includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.”
6. It would spur investments in clean energy
A number of large energy companies including Exelon Corp., Symantec Corp., PSEG Inc., and others support the American Clean Energy and Security Act “because certainty and clear rules of the road enable us to plan, build and innovate our businesses. It would drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and would create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy."
Inducements to invest include a nationwide renewable energy standard that requires energy companies to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020, and requires utilities to reduce electricity demand by 5 percent via efficiency measures. The legislation also provides a total of $190 billion through 2025 for investments in clean energy, efficiency programs and deployment of top-notch energy technologies.
7. It would create new income streams for farmers
There is great potential to generate clean energy in rural areas. The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income, and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades. Leasing land for a single utility-scale wind turbine could provide a farmer with about $3,000 a year in income.
According to Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases of Colorado State notes that “increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity…while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The Energy Information Administration has estimated the value of agricultural offsets to be close to $24 billion annually. Farmers have the ability to reap benefits from leasing their land and from agricultural carbon offsets. For example, a new 107-megawatt wind farm in Minnesota yielded $500,000 per year in lease payments to farmers.
8. It would protect farmers from energy-related price increases
Agriculture is exempt from the greenhouse gas pollution reduction requirements in H.R. 2454. It also includes a provision to aid farmers should they face a reduction in purchasing power due to higher energy costs (see Title IV, Section 432 of the House bill). Under the bill, rural residents so affected would become eligible for monthly cash refunds.
9. It would protect energy intensive, trade-sensitive industries
The American Clean Energy and Security Act allocates 15 percent of its pollution allowances to industries that use significant amounts of energy and face international competition. This provision would protect them from competition from lower cost imports from countries that do not have greenhouse gas pollution reduction programs. This includes the cement, paper, chemical, aluminum, and steel industries. Estimated total value of the near-term allocation pool is around $100 billion by 2020, with the allowances for trade-sensitive industries consisting of $13 billion by 2020.
10. It would cut greenhouse gas pollution
The 17 percent reduction in carbon pollution required by 2020 would cut 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 compared to inaction. Removing that much carbon is comparable to taking 500 million cars off the road, which is twice the number of U.S. cars today, and half the cars expected in the world in 2020.
The bill would shrink deforestation as well, which is essential because tropical forests help to absorb greenhouse gas pollution and remove atmospheric carbon. A small percentage of emissions allowances are set aside for projects in other countries that would reduce deforestation. The EPA estimates that the allowances to reduce deforestation would reduce pollution by one billion tons annually by 2015—equivalent to taking over 200 million cars off the road.
11. It would create a safety net for displaced workers
In the unfortunate event that some workers lose their jobs in high polluting industries, the bill has a $150 million workforce retraining program (Title IV, Subtitle B in the House bill). A worker can also petition the Secretary of Labor for payment of 70 percent of lost wages for three years, as well as job training, and health care premium payments.
This program is similar to the one in the Clean Air Act of 1990. This program authorized $250 million annually to the Job Training Partnership Act to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to demand reductions for high sulfur coal, which was responsible for acid rain pollution. Actual job losses were 75 percent lower than predicted, with a grand total of 2,363 people applying for aid so program costs were much lower. This would likely occur under the greenhouse gas pollution reduction program, but it is important to provide this safety for those who may be affected.
12. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is widely supported
Nuclear power companies, a civil rights organization, and a utility trade association have little in common. Yet the Nuclear Energy Institute, the NAACP, and the Edison Electric Institute all support prompt comprehensive action to create clean energy, reduce oil use, and cut carbon pollution."
X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
1. 1.7 million jobs is just the tip of the iceberg. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, renewable energy will soon be less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses. Once that happens, 8.5 million jobs or more is more likely within 15 years.
2. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, we will not only use less fossil fuels than we would have used, we’ll use less than we do now.
Then once renewable energy becomes less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses, we will use enough less to import less or even no oil at all and stop burning coal in a way that releases CO2 and other health harmful pollution.
3. 4. & 5.
In the short run, increases to utility bills may be more than this estimate. But programs for low income taxpayers will help. It will cost money to build new powerlines and smart grid components and both small scale and massive renewable energy installations.
But it won’t be excessive either.
But the much better news is that once a lot of this new infrastructure is built, utility bills will then be as much as half or a third of what they otherwise would have cost had we not switched to renewable energy. In addition, we will be spending much less fighting the consequences of global warming and have an economy strong enough to support paying the costs we do have.
The alternative, I think, is to face economic collapse that would ensue otherwise when we would have soaring energy costs, very high expenses to fight global warming, and a weak economy all at the same time.
Personally, I don’t think that scenario is a prudent choice. Slowing fossil fuel use a bit initially and building massive amounts of renewable energy will prevent that scenario.
Legislation that accelerates that set of actions is critically important because of this.
6. & 7. are true. Building this new infrastructure on a large scale will attract investments and give both entrepreneurs and many farmers a real shot at making more money than they do now. One building renewable energy pays well and new renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel based energy, that will really take off. At that point the needed changes will become self sustaining and speed up.
8. 9. & 11. show the current thinking is to minimize the negative impact of making these changes. It remains to be seen how effective this will be. But if good faith efforts are made from the outset, it will help.
10. Yes it will slow global warming and reduce the costs of it below what it otherwise would have been. That extra time may enable us to keep our ability to grow food and keep our coastal cities where we might have not been able to do so otherwise.
Taking a decent shot we’ll be able to do that is far better than giving up and for sure losing those two battles.
12. Anyone who sees the grave consequences of failing to do this supports it. And, of course people and companies who will benefit support it.
The interesting thing is that some large companies with unusually good management in place are beginning to support it.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Big companies getting into renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-15-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
Two ways to achieve this are:
1. … to use very large solar thermal plants in very sunny desert locations to generate electricity. Once set up, they generate close to zero carbon emissions while generating very large amounts of electricity. And, since they can store the heat efficiently for several hours, they can deliver some of their electricity at night!
2. … to bring large amounts of biofuels online to replace fossil fuels and do so in ways that do NOT conflict with food production or cause forests to be cut down to “grow” the biofuels. While such biofuels do release CO2 they also remove most of the CO2 first so they are close to carbon neutral. And, they can be blended with existing liquid fossil fuels &/or to replace such fuels as a way to make much of our current transportation economy more carbon neutral and lower CO2 levels.
Just this week I learned that some of the world’s largest companies are beginning to bet serious money on these two efforts exactly.
Of the two, the first may have the most potential for reducing CO2, particularly as we get more plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. But the need is so great and the transport part of our economy using liquid fuels is so huge, the second one is clearly much needed also.
1. I had heard of the idea of installing solar thermal plants across the deserts of Northern Africa and using undersea cables to deliver the electricity generated to Europe.
The recent news is that the two huge engineering firms, ABB and Siemens, Deutsche Bank, & 9 other companies have formed a consortium to do just that with a target of providing 15% of the electricity used in Europe by no later than 2050. And, their plans include seeing to it that the host countries also get large amounts of this electricity for their own use allowing them to get economic growth without fossil fuel use!
I’d prefer to have seen the announcement say 30% by 2035 since that might be doable. But the fact that such huge and well managed companies are doing the deal suggests strongly it will happen. That’s extremely good news indeed.
I particularly like that this project has the potential to benefit the economies of Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt which do not have huge oil deposits. It also will provide Saudi Arabia a lifeline when they run out of commercially extractable oil and improve its economy before then. And, it will increase the co-operation and dialogue between these countries and Europe.
(So, far that has not happened in the United States for sending solar thermal from our desert Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountain states to our population centers. Nor has such an idea been proposed to send solar thermal electricity from Mexico to the United States while giving Mexico carbon free electricity, economic growth and jobs. And, since that sector of the United States can almost provide 100% of current nationwide demand while the potential in Mexico is at least three times larger, that these two projects don’t yet have such development consortiums in place is extremely unfortunate.
Hopefully the North Africa – Europe project will cause some copycat efforts here.)
2. It was just announced yesterday that Exxon Mobil will invest $600 million in a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc, a biotech company from La Jolla, California to develop biofuel transportation fuels from algae.
If this preliminary work appears viable as a way to mass produce biofuels from algae Exxon Mobil will likely make additional, multibillion-dollar investments to put this into mass production.
Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop and food production. And the biofuels can be mixed with or replace the fossil fuels Exxon already provides. It also means Exxon will be able to use its current refineries, existing pipelines, and tanker trucks to get these biofuels to consumers.
$300 million will go to Exxon's internal costs and $300 million or more to Synthetic Genomics, if research & development milestones are met successfully.
The other good news is that there are other entries into competing biofuels from startups such as Solazyme in South San Francisco, California that is also working with algae as a feedstock.
Other large companies are also in the race.
Royal Dutch Shell is working with Iogen Corp in Canada to produce ethanol from wheat straw and with Choren Industries of Germany to develop a biofuel from wood residue. (Their other decision to stop backing solar and wind energy looks as if it may be a serious mistake.)
And, BP expects to work with Verenium Corp to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida.
Neither these massive solar thermal installations nor cost effective biofuels that do not compete with food or forests on a very large scale will work at all soon.
But since large companies are backing them -- and the two projects have such large scale promise, they each are very good news and may well happen.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-15-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
Two ways to achieve this are:
1. … to use very large solar thermal plants in very sunny desert locations to generate electricity. Once set up, they generate close to zero carbon emissions while generating very large amounts of electricity. And, since they can store the heat efficiently for several hours, they can deliver some of their electricity at night!
2. … to bring large amounts of biofuels online to replace fossil fuels and do so in ways that do NOT conflict with food production or cause forests to be cut down to “grow” the biofuels. While such biofuels do release CO2 they also remove most of the CO2 first so they are close to carbon neutral. And, they can be blended with existing liquid fossil fuels &/or to replace such fuels as a way to make much of our current transportation economy more carbon neutral and lower CO2 levels.
Just this week I learned that some of the world’s largest companies are beginning to bet serious money on these two efforts exactly.
Of the two, the first may have the most potential for reducing CO2, particularly as we get more plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. But the need is so great and the transport part of our economy using liquid fuels is so huge, the second one is clearly much needed also.
1. I had heard of the idea of installing solar thermal plants across the deserts of Northern Africa and using undersea cables to deliver the electricity generated to Europe.
The recent news is that the two huge engineering firms, ABB and Siemens, Deutsche Bank, & 9 other companies have formed a consortium to do just that with a target of providing 15% of the electricity used in Europe by no later than 2050. And, their plans include seeing to it that the host countries also get large amounts of this electricity for their own use allowing them to get economic growth without fossil fuel use!
I’d prefer to have seen the announcement say 30% by 2035 since that might be doable. But the fact that such huge and well managed companies are doing the deal suggests strongly it will happen. That’s extremely good news indeed.
I particularly like that this project has the potential to benefit the economies of Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt which do not have huge oil deposits. It also will provide Saudi Arabia a lifeline when they run out of commercially extractable oil and improve its economy before then. And, it will increase the co-operation and dialogue between these countries and Europe.
(So, far that has not happened in the United States for sending solar thermal from our desert Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountain states to our population centers. Nor has such an idea been proposed to send solar thermal electricity from Mexico to the United States while giving Mexico carbon free electricity, economic growth and jobs. And, since that sector of the United States can almost provide 100% of current nationwide demand while the potential in Mexico is at least three times larger, that these two projects don’t yet have such development consortiums in place is extremely unfortunate.
Hopefully the North Africa – Europe project will cause some copycat efforts here.)
2. It was just announced yesterday that Exxon Mobil will invest $600 million in a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc, a biotech company from La Jolla, California to develop biofuel transportation fuels from algae.
If this preliminary work appears viable as a way to mass produce biofuels from algae Exxon Mobil will likely make additional, multibillion-dollar investments to put this into mass production.
Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop and food production. And the biofuels can be mixed with or replace the fossil fuels Exxon already provides. It also means Exxon will be able to use its current refineries, existing pipelines, and tanker trucks to get these biofuels to consumers.
$300 million will go to Exxon's internal costs and $300 million or more to Synthetic Genomics, if research & development milestones are met successfully.
The other good news is that there are other entries into competing biofuels from startups such as Solazyme in South San Francisco, California that is also working with algae as a feedstock.
Other large companies are also in the race.
Royal Dutch Shell is working with Iogen Corp in Canada to produce ethanol from wheat straw and with Choren Industries of Germany to develop a biofuel from wood residue. (Their other decision to stop backing solar and wind energy looks as if it may be a serious mistake.)
And, BP expects to work with Verenium Corp to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida.
Neither these massive solar thermal installations nor cost effective biofuels that do not compete with food or forests on a very large scale will work at all soon.
But since large companies are backing them -- and the two projects have such large scale promise, they each are very good news and may well happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)