The Energy Blog

Nuclear Power: A Change for the Better

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush shared his opinions on nuclear power in the Ocala, Fl  Star Banner:

"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

Against the backdrop of a larger discussion about how we will meet our future energy demand while keeping our environment clean, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. Americans are beginning to shed the emotional debate about nuclear energy and are taking a practical look at why it is essential to meeting our future energy demand.

They like what they see. The support for nuclear energy is diverse. It's one of the few issues in Washington, D.C., these days that feels bipartisan. Even former naysayers are coming around to the merits of nuclear.

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

Yergin: Climate Change and Energy are Converging into New Era of Clean Energy

The sometimes outspoken Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) and executive vice president, IHS Inc., spoke at the 2008 National Governors Association (NGA) Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 23. Some of his remarks may be of interest to readers of TEB.

“High energy prices, climate change and energy security are converging as the new engine driving the development of clean energy, There is a major shift in public opinion towards clean energy, which is being bolstered by the growing conviction that new carbon policies will reshape the competitive landscape of the global energy business.”  . . .

Citing CERA’s new study, Crossing the Divide: the Future of Clean Energy, Yergin said that renewable power and biofuels could be supplying as much as 16 percent of the global electric and transportation needs by 2030.  . . .

On current oil prices, he added, “A major reason for the current leap to around $100 a barrel is the economy – but now a weak U.S. economy, rather than the strong global economy that has been so important the last few years. A slowing U.S. economy, rate cuts by the Federal Reserve and expectations of more, and a weak U.S. dollar – along with the reappearance of inflation around the world – are driving investors into oil and other commodities. Instead of the traditional ‘flight to the dollar’ during times of uncertainty, we are seeing a ‘flight to oil.’”  . . .

Two of his key insights from the Crossing the Divide study may be of special interest to readers:

Renewable power technologies are poised for substantial growth – Wind will make the largest gains, followed by solar power and biomass — despite near-term bottlenecks in wind turbine manufacturing, supply shortages in silicon and competitive pressures from escalating component costs.

Conventional emission-free technologies – Nuclear and hydroelectric generation will account for most of the clean energy impact for the next decade, and almost half the gross clean power additions by 2030. The coal resource base and utilization in the United States and China will create a powerful drive to develop “clean coal” technologies.

Shell CEO Presents Two Scenarios For the Future of Energy

The chief executive of Shell has posted this article on Shell's new energy scenarios. I was made aware of it by The Oil Drum, who first posted it at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548 and I thought it was worth repeating for your comments. They had a large number, 153, of mostly very insightful comments at the time of this posting. 

The article supports the peak oil theory, as I envision it. They defined it as the time that easy accessible oil will no longer be able to keep up with demand, their estimate being 2015.  I interpret that as meaning that heavy oil, as in the tar sands of Canada and the heavy oil in Venezuela, and oil shale are not significant sources of oil by 2015 and that their addition will cause significant increases in the price of oil which will have an effect on demand. The exact date is not that important, but it is meaningful that they predict a relatively near date, within the next 10 years.

They also predict that A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen.  I think they underemphasize this important factor in reducing our consumption of oil, and believe that hydrogen will not play that important a role. I think a very aggressive development of PHEVs, EVs and biofuels combined with North Americas' (USA, Mexico and Canada) remaining reserves of oil should be able to supply all our needs to power our vehicles and have some expensive oil left over to export to other countries before 2100, hopefully by 2050.

The statements that more nuclear power will be required and that carbon capture and sequesteration (CCS) must be required on coal powered power plants in all developed countries are right in line with my thinking.  In the interim period, until renewable power can replace all aging nuclear and coal powered plants, these power sources will be required, no matter how much power is saved by increased efficiency in the home and in industry. From the economic point of view nuclear power has the clear advantage over coal when CCS is required on coal plants. However there is opposition to nuclear in some quarters and will be as long as the threats of proliferation and problems with waste disposal remain issues.  To me the ideal situation would be thorium fueled plants with fuel recycling.  However it will be a very long time before there is any consensus on that.

The complete text of the article, as appears on the Shell website, is given below. The bold facing is mine.

Two Energy Futures

* By Jeroen van der Veer

By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Where the Presidential Canidates Stand on Energy Policy

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has published a comparison of the energy policy positions of the 2008 presidential candidates, which range from environmentally responsible to business-as-usual.

Of the major candidates, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have strong energy policy positions while John McCain has a much weaker policy. Mitt Romney has a very weak positions on energy policy. Of the major candidates only Rudy Giuliani has not articulated an energy policy, except that he supports liquid coal, according to the LCV.

Study the League of of Conservation Voters chart on where candidates stand on energy policy and form you own opinion on who most conforms to your way of thinking.

Kansas Turns Down Coal Power Plant Because of CO2 Emissions

An article in the Washington Post reports, on what could be a major decision in the fight against global warming, that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment. . . .

It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act. . . . more

Update, 12:34 am:

This is not the only coal plant in trouble, as this article in the Austin American Statemen reports:  At least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals nationwide have been scrapped in recent months and more than three dozen have been delayed as utilities face increasing pressure due to concerns over global warming and rising construction costs. . . . more

Update, 1:48 am:

In Energy and Capital Jeff Siegel wrote: This past Tuesday, American Electric Power Company agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement over pollution controls at its power plants. The company will also have to shell out $15 million in civil penalties and $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs. . . . more

If this precedent is followed, and it will be cited by environmentalists in future applications for air quality permits for future coal powered power plants, we may not need additional legislation to require carbon capture and sequestration, unless a law is passed exempting carbon dioxide from the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The later would be a very unpopular law with citizens and, I believe, from Democrats and without much support from Republicans in an election year.  Until this is straighted out in appeals courts, it looks like a big win for nuclear power and renewables as utilities will be less willing to take a chance on coal powered power plants. This will also be a big boon for wind power and thermal solar in the near future, until PV solar becomes more competitive. The fact is that coal power is getting more expensive as many other sources are becoming less expensive.

DOE Loan Guarantee Program Regulations Issued

Biopact also reported that DOE has announced that the final regulations for its loan guarantee program have been issued. This paves the way for selection and funding of clean energy projects including the cellulosic ethanol projects that had been selected earlier. Limited funding is available now, as I understand it, $2 billion has been authorized which should be enought for the 16 projects that have been selected for final review.  Congress currently is considering the Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Budget request for $9 billion in loan guarantee authority and $8.4 million to run the Loan Guarantee office.   more in Biopact ...

Bodman Speaks on Transportation Fuels

In an interview on CNBC a few minutes ago, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman responding to a question about what he saw for the future supply of power for the transportation market said that he saw solar power, wind power, plug-in hybrids using solar and wind power, and biofuels such as ethanol and butanol as being the future power sources.

I view this response remarkable in two respects 1) the mention of plug-ins with such importance and without (the apparent need for) any attempt to explain what they were and 2) the mention of butanol as an important biofuel.  This represents a change in the administrations attitude over the past couple of years as plug-ins and butanol were not in their vocabulary before that.  This points out the success of the efforts of CalCars (California Cars Initiative) and Plug in Partners in promoting plug-in hybrid vehicles as well as the efforts of the various biofuel advocate groups.

"Facing the Hard Truths about Energy"

“Accumulating risks to the supply of reliable, affordable energy” require an integrated national strategy, according to a major new report by the National Petroleum Council (NPC).

The 18-month study of global energy to 2030 involved more than 350 experts from diverse backgrounds and organizations—the majority of them from outside the oil and gas industry.

A list of five core strategies and the hard truths about the global energy future give an indication of the point of view of the report.

The report identifies five core strategies for meeting future energy challenges:

• Moderate the growing demand for energy by increasing efficiency of transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
• Expand and diversify production from clean coal, nuclear, biomass, other renewables, and unconventional oil and natural gas; moderate the decline of conventional domestic oil and gas production; and increase access for development of new resources.
• Integrate energy policy into trade, economic, environmental, security, and foreign policies; strengthen global energy trade and investment; and broaden dialogue with both producing and consuming nations to improve global energy security.
• Enhance science and engineering capabilities and create long-term opportunities for research and development in all phases of the energy supply and demand system.
• Develop the legal and regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In addition, as policymakers consider options to reduce CO2 emissions, provide an effective, global framework for carbon management, including establishment of a transparent, predictable, economy-wide cost for CO2 emissions.

Senate Nixes Clean Coal & Nuclear in RPS

National Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) legislation proposed by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), which included clean coal technology and nuclear power in addition to sources of renewable energy such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and tidal, was defeated in the U.S. Senate on Friday 56-29.

The legislation would have been an alternative to a proposal introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) which calls for an RPS requiring 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewables by 2020.

Domenci claimed that Bingamans plan was too expensive costing over $175 billion, while industry experts claimed that adding nuclear and clean coal would weaken the the RPS.

A study conducted by the EIA concluded that the increase in renewable generation stimulated by Bingaman's proposal primarily displaces coal-fired generation. By 2030, coal generation is 3086 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) with the RPS compared with 3330 billion kWh in the reference case, a reduction of some 7%. Coal generation is still expected to grow significantly from 2000 billion kWh in 2005. Nuclear generation is reduced by less than 5%, to 856 billion kWh with the RPS from 896 billion kWh in the reference case. As with coal, this still represents significant growth relative to 2005 generation levels.

Without the RPS, CO2 emissions are projected to rise to 3338 million tonnes by 2030, from some 2375 million tonnes in 2005. With the RPS policy, CO2 emissions are projected at almost 3116 million tonnes in 2030, about 6.7% less than the reference case, but still substantially higher than in 2005. Emissions of regulated sulphur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions are not expected to significantly change with this policy because they are limited by existing programs.

The Senate Energy Bill

NPR.org, June 14, 2007 · The controversial energy bill now on the Senate floor takes a different approach than the bill pushed through by a Republican Senate in 2005. That measure sought to increase domestic oil production through subsidies and other incentives. With Democrats now in charge, the new bill focuses on decreasing consumption of oil and gasoline. Here's a look at the bill's major provisions:  . . . continued

Peak Oil Will Change You Lifestyle

The Evansville Courier & Press has an editorial on peak oil,  "Peak oil crisis will require fundamental cultural change" that deals with the "will change your lifestyle" part of The Energy Blog's motto. It does not deal with the date of peak oil or the technology, but suggests some changes in lifestyle that will help us get through this period.

A congressional report firmly recommends that we "better prepare for a peak in oil." and "clearly states that there is no U.S. policy to deal with global peak oil." The editorial goes on to state the following regarding these issues.

Oil, for all its dirty, nasty attributes, is the best thing since man discovered fire. ...

Humans have for all practical purposes found, drilled, pumped and refined half of the crude oil on the planet — the easiest half: 900 billion barrels — so far this century. What's left are declining fields with hard-to-extract heavy (sour) crude, oil shale and tar sands. These will require ever more energy to extract and will approach a negative net energy result. ...

Surfers Make Waves in British Battle of the Breaks

LONDON -- A political storm is looming over one of Britain's first wave power projects, the Wave Hub, which surfers fear will drain energy from the waves they ride along the Atlantic coast.

In one corner stand the local authorities and power companies, who say the 25 million pound ($49 million) experimental installation is vital to developing wave power systems and helping combat global warming.

In the other, the surfers of Cornwall on Britain's southwest peninsula, many of whom moved to the region specifically to catch those waves. ...

Wave Hub's backers say the installation will also generate up to 20 megawatts of energy ... the installation, 10 miles (16 km) off the popular holiday ....more

This, one of the least disruptive technologies, hasn't got off the ground and the protests have started. I guess if your not a surfer you have a different point of view.

How much energy is in the waves in this part of the ocean that isn't being used? The majority I presume. And isn't the disruption of the ocean pretty much dissipated by the time the waves reach the area where they surf?

House Energy Bill Would Double U.S Automobile MPG, Expand Ethanol Distribution and Build Mass Transit

House Democrats unveil new energy plan
Chris Baltimore, Reuters, March 1, 2007

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday unveiled a bill that would spend about $15 billion to double U.S. automobile fuel efficiency, expand ethanol distribution and build more mass transit. ...

The bill would fund research into ways to double U.S. automobile fuel efficiency, focusing on hydrogen, fuel cells, plug-in hybrids and other high-tech ideas. It would give grants to build more public transit and commuter rail systems, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer  said.

It also would reimburse companies for installing new pumps at service stations to dispense gasoline blended with 85 percent ethanol, as well as tanks to hold the fuel, which because of its corrosive properties cannot be stored with gasoline blended only from crude. ...

The Need for Both Biofuels and Battery Based Vehicles

Based on the response to this mornings post on the governments cellulosic ethanol program, I think some of you may have misunderstood the reasoning behind The Energy Blog supporting this cellulosic ethanol program and some of the basic causes and remedies of The Energy Revolution. Our most pressing energy problem is our decreasing supplies of increasingly expensive oil for the transportation industries. The high use of petroleum products for transportation is one of the primary causes of global warming (the other being coal fired power plants, which will not be discussed in this post), fortunately the solution to the problem of increased use of petroleum products also decreases the emissions of global warming gases.

This is not a short term problem, but one that has taken years to develop and will take years to solve. The timing is hard to pin down. I believe we have passed the peak production of inexpensive sweet crude oil. Each year we are now using larger quantities of expensive (either to harvest and/or refine) oil, whether it be sour oil, very deep offshore oil, heavy oil or perhaps eventually shale oil. At some time, as prices of oil go up, market forces will cause the use of oil to decrease. This would require changes in lifestyle, some of which would be beneficial, as there is much waste and some of which could reduce the the standard of living that we have become used to. More use of mass transportation and driving more efficient vehicles are certainly required. 

ASES: Aggressive Plan Could Control GHG Emissions

The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has published a report, Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.: Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030, which enumerates, based on NASA's assessment that we need to limit the additional average world temperature rise due to greenhouse gases to 1˚C above the year-2000 level, the results of their studies of how energy efficiency and the use of renewables could achieve this goal. Estimates are that industrialized nations must reduce emissions about 60% to 80% below today’s values by mid-century.

The results of these studies show that renewable energy has the potential to provide approximately 40% of the U.S. electric energy need projected for 2030 by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). After we reduce the EIA electricity projection by taking advantage of energy efficiency measures, renewables could provide about 50% of the remaining 2030 U.S. electric need.

The following table summarizes the potential carbon reduction contributions from the various areas. (Energy efficiency contributions in the buildings, transportation, and industry sectors are combined into one number) (in MtC/yr in 2030).

Energy efficiency	688
Concentrating solar power	63
Photovoltaics	63
Wind	181
Biofuels	58
Biomass	75
Geothermal	83

Australia Bans Incandescent Lightbulbs

Australia to Change Lightbulbs to Curb Warming
Reuters via Planet Ark, February 21, 2007

Australia will be the world's first country to ban incandescent lightbulbs in a bid to curb Greenhouse gas emissions, with the government saying on Tuesday they would be phased out within three years.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said yellow incandescent bulbs, which have been in use virtually unchanged for 125 years, would be replaced by more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs by 2009.

Economists Favor Rasing Taxes On Fossil Fuels

Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?
By Phil Izzo, Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2007

Economists Say Government Should Foster Alternatives – But Not How Bush Proposes

The government should encourage development of alternatives to fossil fuels, economists said in a WSJ.com survey. But most say the best way to do that isn't in President Bush's energy proposals: a new tax on fossil fuels.

Forty of 47 economists who answered the question said the government should help champion alternative fuels. Economists generally are in favor of free-market solutions, but there are times when you need to intervene," said David Wyss at Standard & Poor's Corp. "We're already in the danger zone" because of the outlook for oil supplies and concerns about climate change, he said.

A majority of the economists said a tax on fossil fuels would be the most economically sound way to encourage alternatives. ...

This may be the popular view of economists, but would the public like it.  This approach is used in Brazil and parts of Europe.  What do you think?

The Presidents Budget Request on Energy

The following items, FYI, are take directly from the Presidents budget request (slide 23 & 24):

The Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI):

The AEI is accelerating breakthroughs in how we power our homes, cars, and businesses and will help the U.S. to diversify its sources of energy, reduce dependency on oil and increase our energy security.

• Coal Research Initiative: $385 million to complete the President’s commitment to invest $2 billion over 10 years – three years ahead of schedule— to develop technologies to reduce air emissions while providing domestically secure, cost-efficient electricity from America’s huge coal reserve.

o FutureGen Project: $108 million towards construction of a nearly emissions-free coal plant that captures and stores carbon dioxide rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.

• Solar America Initiative: $148 million toward the goal of making solar technology cost competitive with conventional electricity by 2025.

Who is Going to Pay For Renewable Energy?

Energy Research on a Shoestring

New York Times, January 25, 2007 Despite a lot of promises, no one so far has wanted to pay the extra costs to make wind and solar more than a trivial energy source. The intertwined goals of developing domestic energy resources and reducing global warming gases are not necessarily in step with each other.  Despite a lot of promises, no one so far has wanted to pay the extra costs to make wind and solar more than a trivial energy source. Research is uncertain and expensive, and the benefits seem far away. ...

Financing Plan for Renewables Transmission Lines

California ISO Asks Federal Government to Back New Plan for ''Greening the Grid''

California ISO, press release, January 25, 2007

In a precedent-setting move that could have national implications, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (California ISO) filed today with its regulator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to approve in concept a financing plan for transmission trunklines to remote locations in order to get green power from multiple users onto the grid. ...

If the new payment mechanism is approved and implemented, it would be a first-of-its-kind means of removing financial barriers that can hinder development of wind, solar, geothermal ... renewable energy resources. ...

“We don’t have a choice as to where these natural resources are located,” said Rich Ferguson research director for the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. “If we’re going to use these assets to offset less environmentally friendly types of power generation, we need to be able to build the transmission lines that reach those remote locations.” ...

This press release points out very well one of the big problems that renewable energy power plants have in becoming a larger factor in competing with conventional power sources. Even larger problems are expanding the grid so that power can be transmitted to widely separated geographical areas. How these costs should be passed on to the consume, must be determined before financing these projects can go foreword.

Unfortunately affordable high temperature superconducting (HTS) transmission cables are still years away from widespread use, even though significant progress is being made. See Amercan Superconductor Reports Out sanding Progress, ACCC (Aluminum Conductor Composite Core) cable and Second Generation Superconducting Cable Energized, for some of the developments being made in newer technologies for our transmission lines.

 

Bodmans Comments on the State of Union Address Regarding Energy

Various news agencies reported on Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's statements at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, that the U.S. "will need to have more imports of ethanol," if it is to meet the new mandate to cut gasoline use.

Bodman also said that he did not see a 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy to U.S. farmers remaining in place beyond 2010 or import tariff on ethanol of 54 cents a gallon beyond 2008.  These remarks were made in regard to Bush's proposal outlined in Tuesday's State of the Union address in which the president said that he aims to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2017, mostly by replacing the fuel with ethanol, and by expected improvements in automobile fuel economy. (see previous post)

"The idea is that at some point in the future all these technologies need to stand the test of the free market," Bodman said.

Another report quoted Bodman as saying that the U.S. "must go beyond corn" to increase ethanol supplies. Corn could produce only 12 billion to 15 billion gallons of fuel a year, so the nation must develop ways to derive ethanol from plant waste.

Bush's Energy Reduction Executive Order Includes Provisions Requiring Purchase of Plug-in Vehicles

On Wednesday President Bush issued an executive order stating that:

"It is the policy of the United States that Federal agencies conduct their environmental, transportation, and energy-related activities under the law in support of their respective missions in an environmentally, economically and fiscally sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable manner."

He instructed government agencies to take eight steps to reduce energy consumption, two of which I am focusing on.

1) If agencies operates a fleet of at least 20 motor vehicles 

(i) reduce the fleet's total consumption of petroleum products by 2 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2015,
(ii) increases the total fuel consumption that is non-petroleum-based by 10 percent annually, and
(iii) use plug-in hybrid (PIH) vehicles when PIH vehicles are commercially available at a cost reasonably comparable, on the basis of life-cycle cost, to non-PIH vehicles

The State of the Union on Energy

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush called for an energy agenda having these main points. The complete text of his six paragraphs on energy policy are found in the continuation.

1) Greater use of coal, solar, wind and nuclear
2) Battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles
3) Expand the use of clean diesel vehicles
4) Greater emphasis on cellulosic ethanol
5) Reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years by
     5a) Setting a mandatory Fuels Standard of 35 billion
           gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017
     5b) Adopting fuel economy standards for cars to conserve
           eight and a half billion gallons of gasoline by 2017

I don't really have any objection to these points, except to say that I think we could reduce gasoline consumption by more than 20% by having even higher economy standards for cars and a really good push on batteries and plug-ins, electric cars ought to be included, we ought to include butanol and geothermal in our stable of renewable fuels, we need an a greater effort on more efficient power transmission technologies if we are going to take full advantage of renewable energy sources and we should place a high priority on energy storage technologies.

The best way to encourage better batteries would be to require the post office to replace its fleet with electric vans and require the other government agencies to use efficient hybrids. By the time laws were enacted and RFP's written a couple of years would pass by and the technology would be even better.

The only money we need to spend on coal technology is to encourage IGCC plants and carbon capture technologies, this program is pretty well in place, if more money would speed it up all the better. Getting the money that has been authorized into the budget and released is probable all that is needed.

I know that increased use of coal and nuclear will be controversial among many of my readers, but I don't see any way other technologies can take their place in the next 25 to 50 years. I am sure there are those of you that think that government spending for energy technologies is not necessary, that market forces would provide all the incentives that are needed.  This is too much of a risk. The cost of our liquid fuels are increasing at too high a rate, despite the recent lull, and if we are not to have drastic economic effects we must push on with alternative energy sources before this happens. All the money we need for these programs could come from reducing the subsidies on hydrogen, fuel cells and the oil industry.

Free Solar Power for Staples

The Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF), Staples and SunEdison hosted a dedication ceremony on Jan. 16 to unveil the largest solar power installation in New England at Staples’ 300,000-square-foot retail distribution center in Killingly, Connecticut. The solar power installation, built at no capital cost to Staples, was made possible through the collaborative effort of CCEF, which provided a $1.7 million grant for the project, and SunEdison, which financed the remaining costs of the project and designed and installed the system.

Is this the way we want to see our solar projects financed?  Or is this type of financing necessary to enable expansion of the industry so it is more competitive with conventional power?  I certainly think that the end user should pay a share of the costs. I don't especially blame Staples for taking advantage of a business opportunity.

Governor Pataki's Energy Indepence Plan

The plug-in hybrid program described in the previous post is only one of eight of New York state's Governor Pataki's inititives he proposed in his 2006 State of the State Address and Executive Budget, to reduce our dependence on imported energy. This energy independence plan promotes greater use of clean, renewable fuels, and will spur additional research and development into clean and alternative energy sources. Among the initiatives proposed by the Governor and approved by the State Legislature were:

1) The elimination of all State taxes on renewable automobile fuels, including ethanol (E85), biodiesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG), hydrogen, and other renewable fuels, providing a savings of approximately 40 cents/gallon for consumers.

2) A $10 million competitive grant program, administered by NYSERDA, for private sector gasoline companies to install renewable fuel pumps for E85, biodiesel, CNG, or other renewable fuels. It is estimated that the program will support the installation and operation of between 400 and 600 renewable fuel pumps at private stations across the State. The New York State Thruway Authority is already moving forward with its program to install renewable fuel pumps at all 27 Thruway travel plazas.

ACORE Conference Forecasts 25% of Nations Electricity from Renewables Possible by 2025

Washington, DC (RenewableEnergyAccess.com) The U.S. renewable energy industry collectively identified a future deliverable energy potential of 550 to 700 gigawatts (GW) that can be built within the next 10-20 years. At such a GW-production rate, the U.S. could produce, at a minimum, 25% of the country's electrical energy requirement with renewable energy by 2025.

This forecast makes the "25X25" proposal possible. The 25X25 is a popularly touted policy goal of 25% renewable production by 2025.

This was the message from the 5th annual national policy conference, "Renewable Energy in America: Phase II Market Forecasts and Policy Requirements," sponsored by the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE). ACORE has designated Phase II to be the period from 2000 to 2025.

Americans Want Detroit and Washington to impose 40 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard

According to a poll, released November 21, conducted for the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI), it was found that 90 Percent of Americans expect much higher gas prices soon and almost half of them are now more likely to a buy hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle. Americans want Washington to help the big 3, but don’t want to let carmakers off the hook for past mistakes.

A strong and bipartisan 78 percent of Americans want Washington to impose a 40 mile per gallon (MPG) fuel efficiency standard for American vehicles.

Other key findings of the ORC survey include the following:

• Nine out of 10 Americans expect gas prices to go up “in the near future,” with nearly half (46 percent) “definitely” expecting a resumption of higher fuel prices.
• 70 percent of Americans are not turning their back on fuel-efficiency concerns and say that they are factoring “expected future gasoline price increases into consideration in thinking about buying a new vehicle.”
• Temporarily lower gasoline prices are not sending large numbers of Americans rushing back to gas-guzzling SUV and trucks. In fact, nearly half (45 percent) of Americans are now more likely to buy a “hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle” than they were six months ago, compared to 30 percent who are unchanged in their plans and fewer than one in four (24 percent) who are less likely to make such a vehicle purchase.

Net Metering: "Freeing the Grid"

The Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC) report "Freeing the Grid,” is the first report ever to rank and grade the effectiveness of 34 state programs designed to help homeowners and small businesses generate their own distributed energy and sell the excess back to the central transmission grid. These ‘net metering’ programs have been described as having the most potential of any policy tool at any level of government to “green” American electricity sources.

“Every homeowner and every small business is a potential source of reliable, renewable electricity for their community,” noted NNEC Executive Director Chris Cooper. “Smart utilities realize that we will have to tap all of these small sources to meet future demand.”

By comparing regulations with customer participation rates, NNEC was able to identify which states had the best programs and which states had the worst (and why).

New Jersey ranked first out of 34 states with net metering programs. Indiana and Arkansas were profiled as states with “worst practices”. Oklahoma ranked last. Read the report to find out what your state is doing to require net-metering.

The Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC) is committed to providing state and local governments with new ideas and useful information to promote clean, affordable power from local, renewable energy sources. NNEC is promoting creative ideas for financing community-based clean energy, helping to dispel misinformation about renewable energy in the media and advocating for critical utility policy reforms that will usher in a new world of energy choices for all Americans.

While I applaud NNEC's efforts to encourage distributed energy, it is only part of the answer to our energy problem. I do not agree that net metering has "the most potential of any policy tool at any level of government to “green” American electricity sources."  Energy conservation through the encouragement of plug-in hybrid vehicles and energy efficient homes using high efficiency lighting (compact fluorescent lights) and higher insulation standards for new homes could have a greater effect in a shorter time period.  Net metering and higher insulation standards need legislation to require them, which takes time and is why organizations like NNEC are needed. Government research money for batteries and purchase, not subsidies, of hybrid and plug-in vehicles is perhaps the best use of taxpayer dollars in the field of energy. 

Bartlett, Udall Respond to CERA Report

Representatives Roscoe Bartlett and Tom Udall were quick to respond to the CERA report on the future supply of oil. (see immediately preceding post)  The cofounders and cochairmen of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus, said that a new report released today by CERA confirms the urgency for the United States government to adopt a crash program to mitigate the devastating consequences of peak oil.

Congressman Bartlett said that, "The CERA report agrees that world oil production will peak and projects it will occur within 20-25 years. However, world demand is growing exponentially - faster than production so the CERA report confirms the likelihood of future shortages of liquid fuel and much higher and volatile prices. A major flaw in the CERA report is its reliance upon questionable assessments of global reserves by the USGS. USGS estimates of future world reserves equate a 50 percent probability with a 50th percentile or mean. That is a bizarre and totally inaccurate use of statistics. It almost doubles the amount of projected reserves compared to the 95 percent probable estimate. Actual discoveries are tracking the 95 percent probable trend. That means world oil production will peak much sooner than CERA projects in this report."

Read the entire press release here.

Somewhat the opposite reaction that I might have expected, I guess these congressmen are smarter than I gave them credit for.  As I said, who cares what the theory is, oil will get more expensive as conventional oil resources are depleted and we are forced to find alternate supplies. I think that CERA's assessment of reserves is probably incorrect for the short term, but there projections may be more accurate in the long term as we have to use more of our harder to use reserves.  This is reflected in Canada's adding some oil sands reserves to its official reserves and Venezuela and China considering adding more of its heavy oil to reserves.

CERA: The Undulating Plateau Theory of Oil Supplies

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) headed by the sometimes controversial chairman Daniel Yergin, released a new analysis of future oil supplies. They claim that rather than oil peaking and then rapidly declining the correct Model for Post-2030 Oil Supply is an undulating plateau.

In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by CERA finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future. ....

Global production will eventually follow an “undulating plateau” for one or more decades before declining slowly.  The global production profile will not be a simple logistic or bell curve postulated by geologist M. King Hubbert, but it will be asymmetrical – with the slope of decline more gradual and not mirroring the rapid rate of increase -- and strongly skewed past the geometric peak. It will be an undulating plateau that may well last for decades.

BP Executive Draws Attention to Climate Change

Vivienne Cox, BP Chief Executive, Gas, Power & Renewables gave a speech on Sept. 27 to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council entitled "Why Clean Electricity Is Critical in Combating Climate Change- Steps to Accelerate America's Low Carbon Power Economy."  Some exerpts from her speech are alarming, bring attention the seriousness of our CO2 emmissions and explain what BP is planning to do about them.

The power sector is the world's single largest source of CO2 emissions. Globally, and in the United States it accounts for over 40% of these emissions. That's twice the level of CO2 emissions from the transport sector. ... A recent study projected that global CO2 emissions will be around 75% higher than they are today by 2030. ...  One projection by Cambridge Energy Research Associates indicates that power will contribute 50% of total global emissions by 2030 - if there are no significant policy interventions. ... We have bought a wind developer Greenlight. ... Greenlight has a pipeline of 39 development projects across the US with a total potential capacity of 6.5GW. ...

Khosla's Four Steps to Promote Ethanol

CNNMoney.com reports that, speaking at a Cleantech Venture Forum conference in New York City, Sun Microsystems co-founder and ethanol investor Vinod Khosla outlined four steps he said would help the country use more ethanol.

• a government mandate that 70 percent of all cars sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel - which is having the ability to run on gas, ethanol or other alcohol-based fuels - by 2014, and that 10 percent of all major-branded gas stations in the U.S. sell E85, a fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol.
• the current government ethanol subsidy of 50 cents a gallon should be based on a sliding scale corresponding to the price of oil: 25 cents a gallon if oil is at $75 a barrel ranging up to 75 cents a gallon if oil falls to $25 a barrel.
• lifting tariffs on imports of ethanol from Brazil, a move strongly opposed by U.S. farmers, in exchange for increasing corn-derived ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, a move he said was supported by some in the agriculture industry.
• it would be up to to industry or the government to pay for these mandates. He said installing the gas pumps would cost something less than a billion dollars and making cars flex-fuel amounts to $35-$100 a vehicle.

"The president loves biomass, the farmers love biomass, even evangelicals love biomass" because it decreases the county's reliance on the Middle East, he said. "As investors we should make this happen because its good for the country."

Tax Break Proposed for Fuel Efficiency

Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden unveiled legislation Monday to offer a tax break of between $630 and $1,860 for consumers buying new, fuel-efficient vehicles as motivation to wean the nation off its oil dependence. The tax break - which they say could also be used as a cash rebate on a car purchase - would be offset under the duo's plan by rolling back a tax deduction used by large oil companies for drilling and development costs. Vehicles that get 25 percent more fuel efficiency than current standards would qualify under the legislation

Under the bill, consumers would receive a $630 tax credit if they purchase a passenger vehicle with fuel economy of 34.5 miles per gallon. That tax credit gradually increases to a maximum $1,660 for passenger vehicles with fuel efficiency of at least 59.5 miles per gallon. Light trucks qualify for a $630 tax credit at 27.5 miles per gallon, going to $1,860 with fuel efficiency of at least 59.5 miles per gallon.

Report Shows the Renewable Path to Energy Security

The Worldwatch Institute and the Center for American Progress have released a comprehensive report, American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security, that shows that an energy future based on abundant and clean renewable resources is not only urgently needed, but achievable.

The report is very comprehensive and gives excellent background information on almost all of the technologies needed for The Energy Revolution.  Unforgivably they omit plug-in hybrid vehicles and energy storage.  Because of the agenda of the two sponsoring organizations they do not include any discussion of IGCC technology, liquefaction technologies or nuclear energy.  Despite these omissions it is a highly recommended read for anyone interested in Renewable Energy and Energy Policy.  I have extensively excerpted some highlights from the report:

Today, renewable resources provide just over 6 percent of total U.S. energy, but that figure could increase rapidly in the years ahead. Many of the new technologies that harness renewables are, or soon will be, economically competitive with the fossil fuels that meet 85 percent of U.S. energy needs.

Bush to Reverse Policy on Global Warming

The Independent had an article "Bush prepares emissions U-turn" which in part stated:

President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say.

After years of trying to sabotage agreements to tackle climate change he is drawing up plans to control emissions of carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use of renewable energy sources.

Over the past few days rumours swept the capital that the "Toxic Texan" would announce his conversion this week ... (but other) Sources say that the most likely moment is the President's State of the Union address in January.

New EPA Rule Would Mandate More Ethanol in Gasoline

Reuters UK: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed new clean fuel rules to comply with a 2005 energy law. Specifically, EPA proposes 3.71 percent of all U.S. gasoline sold next year be a "renewable fuel." Currently the standard is 2.78 percent of all gasoline sales.

EPA projected that the pending rules would mean that the nation's petroleum consumption would drop by 3.9 billion gallons per year, with 14 million tons in greenhouse gas emissions reduced annually.

Both the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and the Clean Air Watch were quoted as objecting to the new rule.

Another Roadmap for Reducing Dependence on Fossil Fuels

A roadmap for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels by up to 98 percent was published in the Jounal Science 1 September 2006, The plan, "A Roadmap to U.S. Decarbonization," would sharply curtail carbon dioxide and methane emissions and reduce global warming while simultaneously reducing America's dependence on imported oil and gas.

The bulk of the fossil fuel savings in the plan - 72 percent - would come from replacement with electricity generated from alternative sources. If achieved, coal, oil and natural gas would no longer be used in electricity production or heating of residential and commercial properties. Also, 65 percent of petroleum used for transportation and 70 percent of natural gas used in industry would no longer be needed. Carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 76 percent, as well.

Dr. Reuel Shinnar, Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering at The City College of New York (CCNY) and Director of the Clean Fuels Institute, and Dr. Francesco Citro, a Research Associate with the Institute wrote the plan which calls for hybrid cars and light trucks equipped with plug-in batteries to replace 80 percent of gasoline usage. This would be the cheapest way to reduce oil consumption, the authors noted. In addition, railroads powered by electricity would handle 50 - 60 percent of the long distance hauling now done by heavy trucks.

Lugar Lashes Oil Companies and Automakers

“Our oil dependence is dangerously unsustainable,” thundered U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar at the Richard G. Lugar-Purdue University Summit on Energy Security – the Hoosier senior senator took just about everyone to task for America’s current dependence on liquid fossilized remains from the Triassic period.

In his opening remarks, Lugar tore into oil companies and American automakers with these harsh words: “Neither American oil companies nor American car companies have shown an inclination to dramatically transform their businesses in ways that will achieve the degree of change we need to address a national security emergency.”

Lugar called for a new legal mandate that will require U.S. automakers to raise mileage standards, a massive infusion of new federal funding for fuel research (generated by an automatic tax that would kick in when oil prices drop below $45 a barrel) and the production of 100 billion gallons of ethanol annually, which would largely replace current international oil imports into the U.S.

DOE Federal Loan Guarantee Program Announced

DOE press release:

In a long awaited announcement, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today unveiled DOE program guidelines for $2 billion in loan guarantees to help spur investment in projects that employ new energy technologies.

“With these loan guarantees we hope to encourage creativity and ingenuity that will help us strengthen our nation’s energy security,” Secretary Bodman said.  “Projects eligible to receive loan guarantees are vast and varied.  We hope to spur investment in new renewable energy projects like solar and wind, as well as clean coal technologies and efforts that can convert cellulosic biomass into ethanol.”

American Energy Security Study

The American Energy Security Study (AESS) is the official name of the report referred to in the previous post. In a brief review of the executive summary I picked up the following items that give a little more background about the report.

The American Energy Security (AES) Study shows that the United States can eliminate dependence on oil imports entirely by 2030. It establishes a bold plan to replace approximately five percent of imported oil each year for 20 years, beginning in 2010 (see Figure 1 below). Assuming aggressive implementation beginning in 2007, under the SSEB American Energy Security initiatives domestic liquid fuels production and transportation efficiency savings begin gradually after 2010 and ramp up to produce most of the nation’s liquid fuels requirements by 2030.

To establish U.S. energy security and independence by 2030 all feasible supply and demand options must be aggressively pursued. There is no single answer:

• Transportation energy efficiency improvements are important but, by themselves, can contribute only a small portion of the required solution.
• Renewable biomass fuels are a critical part of the portfolio of required initiatives, but can produce less than one-fourth of the required liquid fuels.
• CTL, oil shale, and EOR will all contribute substantially, and all three technologies must be aggressively deployed.

The U.S. is endowed with the largest alternative oil resources in the world. This includes five hundred billion tons of coal (oil equivalent of approximately 750,000 billion barrels), the potential to sustain 1.3 billion tons of biomass collection/harvesting for liquid fuel production by 2030 (oil equivalent of approximately 4.5 million barrels per day to perpetuity), more than a trillion barrels of oil shale liquid fuels, and 80+ billion barrels of oil stranded in conventional reservoirs that are technically recoverable using CO2 injection and sequestration to enhance oil recovery. These resources rival estimated worldwide conventional oil resources of 1-2 trillion barrels.

IEA Report Forecasts Renewables Usage, Costs

Book Review by Refocus:

PARIS, France, June 28, 2006 (Refocus Weekly) The world must “act urgently and decisively” to promote renewable energies, says the International Energy Agency.

“The world is not on course for a sustainable energy future,” warns ‘Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios & Strategies to 2050.’ The report is a response to the G8 leaders at the Gleneagles Summit last July, which directed IEA to advise on alternative scenarios and strategies for a clean energy future.

“Technologies can make a difference,” says Claude Mandil of the IEA. “A sustainable energy future is possible, but only if we act urgently and decisively to promote, develop and deploy a full mix of energy technologies including improved energy efficiency, CO2 capture and storage, renewables and, where acceptable, nuclear energy.”

“We have the means; now we need the will,” he explained. “We find that clean and more efficient technologies can return soaring energy-related CO2 emissions to today’s levels by 2050 and halve the expected growth in both oil and electricity demand.”

New York Times Supports Energy Bill

A New York Times editorial throws its support behind the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act. Here are a few short excerpts:

The Senate, has before it the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006. ... The bill has impressive bipartisan sponsorship. ... Its stated purpose is to reduce oil dependency, but the strategies and technologies it encourages would also do much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ...

The bill would require the president to figure out ways to cut oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels — 12.5 percent of current use — by 2016, and cut it in half by 2031. ...

There is also real money here — $1.8 billion for hybrid "plug-in" vehicles, for instance, $1 billion for cellulosic fuels.

Now that's a bill I support, my two favorite technologies featured! And the reduction in oil consumption would be terrific.  I don't know what the chances of this bill being passed are, but let your representatives know if you are in favor of this legislation.

Biofuels, Batteries and Power Plants

I must say that I agree with most of what U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's said in remarks as reported in the referenced article, but they were too short, as mine are usually, to really reflect viewpoint. Our research dollars spent for biofuels and batteries may be in the right direction, but not enough is being spent soon enough and much too much is being spent on hydrogen. I believe that government spending for batteries and biofuels is a pittance and is worth it if it reduces the time until implementation by the smallest amount.  I also think we should reduce all subsidies for ethanol production as soon as possible by tying them to the price of gasoline. Corn ethanol subsidies should be phased out  as soon as cellulosic ethanol is commercial. Congress needs to appropriate the money for the cellulosic ethanol demonstration plants! I am glad to see that batteries are moving to the forefront, but they are so close to commercialization that I don't know how much government research can be justified.  We will need more power plants powered by either coal or nuclear. I prefer coal with sequestration because they can be built faster and the nuclear waste problem is reduced, but a parallel building program may be required.  No mention was made of conservation.  The greatest amount of conservation occurs with electric vehicles getting their energy from advanced power plants operating at above 60% efficiency. The government has sheparded this development much faster than industry ever would have.  Changes in lifestyle and better building insulation standards are very important also. The most immediate impact would be to raise vehicle efficiency standards immediately! But no matter how much conservation is used we will require more power plants. Renewable energy, although important, is not the subject of this discussion because there is no way it can significantly impact our power production in the next 10 years.

He was quoted that he's "surprised" that oil price increases haven't had a greater impact on the U.S. economy and that he is  "worried" that the economy will suffer if oil prices stay above current levels. He further stated that "we are going to reach a limit and we will see a real impact of increased oil prices on our economy. Whether its $95 or something north of that I don't know. I can tell you I'm worried about anything above the current levels."

He went on to say that the administrations policy to increase research dollars for bio-fuels, hybrid battery technology and hydrogen fuel has the country on the right track. "But this country has been decades in getting itself into the fix we're in now. And it'll be a significant number of years working our way out of it."

He also called for the approval of the Yucca Mountain project to dispose of our nuclear waste. "This country doesn't need four (nuclear power) plants. We need 14 or we need 24." In order to support this kind of construction "will require Yucca Mountain be built."  Bodman said demand for electricity in the U.S. will increase 50% over the next 20-25 years and "the only thing I see meeting that is nuclear power."

US Energy Secretary:Oil Prices Eventually Will Impact Economy, Terry Kosdrosky, Dow Jones Newswire, April 6, 2006

Technorati tags: biofuels, batteries, nuclear, electric power, ethanol, coal, energy, technology

First Anniversary of The Energy Blog

On the first anniversary of The Energy Blog I thought it would be appropriate to share some of my thoughts on where we stand in The Energy Revolution, where we are headed and some of the things that I have learned during the past year.

My initial interest in starting the blog was that I was concerned that the price of oil was increasing because of a shortage of oil. I wanted to learn more about it.  I soon became interested in the peak oil phenomena and was immediately sold on the idea that there was a finite amount of oil and that we were approaching the period of peak oil.  What took me quite a bit of time to get through my thick skull was that the term peak oil was used rather loosely and misleading conclusions were being reached by many.  What I have concluded is that we have passed the peak production of cheap,  easy to produce conventional oil and we are now entering an era where oil is going to be increasingly more expensive.  We have vast amounts of oil reserves in what is called sour oil, heavy oil, oilsands oil and shale oil.  The quantity of conventional sweet conventional oil is declining, but is being replaced by the more costly oil at a rate that is keeping up with demand.  Shale oil is still uneconomical and it will remain so for several decades, assuming no technological breakthrough in production costs.

Coal: America's Energy Future

WASHINGTON, March 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today released "Coal: America's Energy Future," a study that contains recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Energy to maximize use of abundant coal for clean electricity generation, transportation fuels, natural gas, hydrogen and ethanol over the next 20 years.

The study recommends the additional use of coal to reduce U.S. energy costs 33 percent while creating more than 1 million new American jobs per year and an aggregate gain of more than $3 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP), which increases to $4 trillion with enhanced oil recovery.

The study identifies ample amounts of U.S. coal reserves to support 100 gigawatts of new electricity generation, 2.6 million barrels per day of refined liquid products, and 4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year of natural gas production for all applications, in addition to support for ethanol, enhanced recovery of oil and coalbed methane, and hydrogen production. ...

Offfshore Wind Energy in Danger

Cape Wind Farm and other offshore wind farms will be in danger if the current bill in congressional committee of congress is passed. Representative Don Young, of Alaska, an advocate of ANWR, is trying to kill plans for the first offshore wind farm in America and ALL offshore wind farms within 1.5 nautical miles of any shipping lane, even though oil platforms can be built within 500 feet of shipping lanes.

As I understand it the bill requires the Coast Guard to prohibit any offshore wind farm from being located within 1.5 nautical miles of a shipping channel or ferry route. This will restrict much-needed clean energy development from offshore wind farms but will not provide additional marine safety.

In addition, it conflicts with the intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  According to that act the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Coast Guard and other agencies, has the responsibility to develop "any necessary regulations."

The bill is still in committee that may be act on it as early as Monday or Tuesday of next week, this is the place to stop it. It is an amendment, so it would be a little bit more difficult to stop in the House or Senate.  Please contact the following congressmen to express your opinion:

Senators on Committee:

Stevens, Snowe, Lott, Smith, Inouye, Cantwell and Lautenberg

House Reps on Committee:

Young (AK), LoBiondo, Coble, Hoekstra, Simmons, Diaz-Balart, M., Boustany, Oberstar, Filner, Taylor (MS), Higgins, Schwartz (PA); Barton (TX), Gillmor, Dingell, Lungren, Daniel E., Reichert, Thompson (MS), Pombo, Jones (NC), and Pallone.

See here, here and here for more details and opinions on the proposed legislation and the debate over the Cape Wind Farm.

Plug-In Partners Launch National Campaign

With articles in the Wall Street Journal, on the Dow Jones Newswire, the Plug-In Partners coalition launched a national campaign with a rally in Washington DC on Tuesday.

Declaring the country's economy, environmental health and national security at risk, a grassroots coalition of cities including Austin, Baltimore, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle as well as electric utilities and national policy organizations today kicked off a nationwide campaign to urge automakers to accelerate development of plug-in hybrid vehicles.  Some quotes from the press briefing include:

"Nothing has to be invented to produce a plug-in hybrid vehicle," says Dr. Andrew Frank, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of California at Davis and Director of the UCD Hybrid Electric Research Center. "Everything needed is available: the power trains, the gasoline engines, the computer systems, electric motors and batteries. All we need is for one of the large auto manufacturers to step up to the plate."

"A plug-in vehicle with even a 20-mile range could reduce petroleum fuel consumption by about 60 percent," says Bob Graham, Manager of EPRI's Electric Transmission program.

"Even drawing from our existing power plants, plug-in vehicles have the potential to cut a vehicle's petroleum consumption by three-fourths or more, can operate at as little as one-fourth the fuel cost, and reduce greenhouse gases by two-thirds," said Kateri Callahan, President of the Alliance to Save Energy.

Resource: National Coalition Launches Campaign to Urge Automakers to Produce Plug-In Automobiles Press release, January 24, 2005

Technorati tags: vehicles, batteries, energy policy, energy, technology

How to Live Without Oil

New energy sources could make petroleum obsolete.  Automobile efficiency could be increased to 92 mpg, light truck mileage to 66 mpg.  This could be done with lightweight construction and hybrid vehicles.  Better aerodynamics and materials could greatly improve the efficiency of 18 wheelers and jetliners.  20% of fuel could be replaced with biofuels.

This would only require a $180 billion investment that starting in 2025 would save $155 billion every year.

Newsweek had the complete article at the above link in their 8/8/05 issue.

I believe they had the numbers to put this plan together.  When are market forces and our legislatures going to put it all together?  Maybe by 2025.  This article makes it sound so easy.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could just wave a magic wand. Even if all their assumptions were right, which I don't dispute, some of the technology would take until 2025 to be fully developed.  I hope the hybrid vehicle part comes true a lot sooner and that biofuels are ramped up by that date.  The general population and industry are going to have to have a bigger shock than we have had so far in convincing them that the oil shortage is permanent. 

Technocrati tags: energy policy, peak oil

Where Does The Energy Revolution Stand?

The Energy Revolution has met some major milestones In the six months since I have been writing this blog, in that there there have been several key developments relating to energy technology and policy which I would like to review and comment on. 

Transportation Fuels

My focus immediately became on transportation fuels, as I soon found out it was our most immediate concern. The development of technology and “roadmaps” that could lead to independence from foreign oil imports for the US and other countries have made significant progress in the last six months.  Although funding to accelerate usage of biofuels is totally inadequate, further evidence of the availability of potential resources is a major step.

• The refusal of congress to institute new mileage standards for passenger vehicles and light weight trucks is a major disappointment. Causes of this complacency include: 1) Congress is unconvinced of the urgency of the problem 2) Lobbyists that are opposed to these standards are much too influential and 3) Congress would rather let market forces create a demand for biofuels and hybrid vehicles rather than getting involved.
• Release of the Hirsch report which presented three scenarios for mitigating a decline in oil production. This report clearly indicates that if aggressive action to mitigate peak oil is not taken at least 10 years before it occurs we will face grave economic impact.  A must reading for all concerned about peak oil and the mitigation thereof.
• Record quantities of ethanol are being produced in Brazil with 40% of new cars sold capable of burning 100% ethanol and all gasoline sold contains at least 25% ethanol. The country is nearly independent of oil imports and is becoming a major exporter of ethanol. Brazil is a model in the use of renewable fuels for the rest of the world.  Please take note!
• Release of the Oak Ridge report stating that up to 30% of our liquid fuels could be produced from cellulosic materials.
• Announcement by DOE that enzymes have been developed that permit using any cellulosic material as a feedstock to the production of ethanol. This development makes possible meeting goals for producing 30% of our liquid fuels from cellulosic materials. This occurance was anticipated in the previously item and makes biofuels a major, realistic alternative.
• Announcement by CleanFuels that it was in the process of commercializing production of biodiesel from algae using smokestack emissions as fuel. This is significant in that it complementary, not competitive with other biodiesel production routes. At the same time the process also reduces CO2 and NOX emissions from power plants.  Though not nearly as far along in development as ethanol, algae biodiesel would make it possible to be the major biofuel.
• Increasing sales and announcement of hybrid vehicles, which is our main means of conservation of gasoline.
• Announcement by scientists at the University of Wisconsin that they had developed a process for producing Alkane based biodiesel from any carbonaceous material.
• A new Renewable Fuels Standard in the new Energy Bill requiring a doubling in the use of biofuels to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012.  Biomass was redefined to include any organic material grown for the purpose of being converted to energy.  This is not nearly a large enough program to allow ethanol and biodiesel to replace our oil imports in a timely manor, but it is a step in the right direction.

The Hirsch Report is Back

Much to my surprise I read that the Hirsch report was missing.  A post in Global Public Media reported on July 30 that the Hirsch report was missing, no longer available on the internet.  I, and a few others, believe that the Hirsch report is the most important, comprehensive and authoritative message on the mitigation of the peaking of oil.

No one in government appears to have read it. I have heard no government official mention the report.  The new energy bill continues to give the majority of its money to oil, gas, hydrogen and nuclear.  Only a marginal amount more, compared to what is needed, is authorized for the alternative fuels that could be use to mitigate declining oil production.

The report is back at the original site that posted it - http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf.    I highly recommend that anyone interested in peak oil or the technologies that could mitigate peak oil read the report.

Technocrati tags: energy policy, peak oil, Technocrati tag: Hirsch Report