Some Congressional Action on Energy?
Posted by Heading Out on April 16, 2007 - 10:48am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: darpa, HR 364, NSF, SBIR, US Congress [list all tags]
Sometimes it is hard to grasp the size of the problem that is now facing the world. One way is, perhaps, to relate it to time. A hundred thousand seconds is just under 28 hours; a million seconds is eleven and a half days, and both are graspable numbers. A billion seconds is, however, 31.7 years, which is almost half a lifetime, and on a different scale of perception. So it is with the world energy supply, it is easy to talk about the necessary changes in individual lifestyle, or to debate whether a single power station/wind farm should or should not be built. Those issues are relatively easy to appreciate and debate. But trying to convey the problems when crude oil and natural gas supplies will drop by over a billion barrels of oil equivalent in a year carries the debate beyond the numbers that are as easy to grasp or assimilate.
This past week I was asked (outside this forum) to give an opinion on H.R. 364, a bill in the US Congress “to provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy.” This seems to follow the earlier H.R. 507 “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the "Man on the Moon" project to address the inevitable challenges of "Peak Oil". This was developed by Congressman Bartlett, who began by making speeches on the floor about Peak Oil, and who joined with Congressman Udall to found the Congressional “Peak Oil” Caucus and to co-sponsor the resolution. Congressman Bartlett is a co-sponsor of H.R. 364.
So I am going to seize this opportunity to give some thoughts on research funding in general, and some possible political realities. But let me start by saying that I think that the bill is a very good idea.
The fossil fuel extraction industry is relatively conservative in regards to research, with a small percentage of their finances being directed toward the topic. Further their definition includes exploration, and much of the research that is funded is aimed purely at solving immediate problems and supply needs, rather than “out-of-the-box” concepts that could have a greater payback but which require a longer term investment. Given the competing tasks of research and teaching an industry executive last week left me in no doubt as to his belief that the second was paramount and the former not that necessary in a university department.
Collectively around the industry there is not a great deal of concern with the long term prognosis. Demand is high, and the needs for production today (and in the next couple of years) take precedence over worrying about where the barrels of oil or tons of coal will come from in a decade or so. There are not enough knowledgeable engineers being graduated from universities around the world to work on today’s issues, and today’s technologies are working, so why fix something that isn’t broke?
A second senior executive (it was that sort of week) discussed the political realities of the coming couple of years. There is, foregoing the collaboration that the above bills illustrate in the House, a considerable difference between Democratic and Republican positions on Energy. Bear in mind, for example, that the next President will appoint the members and heads of a number of oversight committees and agencies that regulate the industries. Given the range of opinions among the currently announced candidates, would you be willing to commit the monies now to start a new venture, while unsure that, with the advent of a new Administration, you might not be faced with a complete reversal of approval, or a wall of new regulations within two years. Better to hold off on that investment until the future gets a little clearer. Both these opinions, you may note, do not sense any concern about the supply of any form of fossil fuel within the near-term.
That having been said, there is a current effort underway in renewable energy that focuses, at different levels of intensity, on wind, solar, hydro-electric and the biofuels. But it is here that my opening comment becomes relevant. We are still at a point where the relative merits of different approaches are being debated. This debate too often spends too much energy on running down the different alternatives – not being willing to recognize the improvements that will come about through research investment – rather than understanding that it will not be too long before we need not one of these, or the other, but rather all of them. It also can assume that, because the Federal Government is backing a technology at the production plant level, the developmental problems needed for economic production have been solved. Therefore, the proponents of that ideology would argue that there is no need for investment in alternative sources, since, with enough investment, approach C will provide all the energy we need.
Unfortunately, particularly with renewable sources that rely on bio-feedstock, the impact of the recent weather on the fruit trees as well as grains shows the dangers of an over-dependence on harvests. It is an event that has occured, the effects are recognized, but the general public (and the dependent wildlife) will not see and pay the cost of the weather until the fall and winter. We must have a broad range of supply alternatives that include all potential sources being considered and developed. And given the problems that some can generate, then research should be carried out to develop a realistic solution. (Closing power plants that are needed to provide the services that sustain life is not a realistic solution). Further just because company/university A is carrying out research in sub-topic B of concept C does not mean that the real answer lies in that line of investigation. Many times it is only through going down multiple paths that the way forward can be detected. Running “lean and mean” research efforts can too often result in waste if the investigation does not initially start out on a broad investigative base.
Hopefully, from this you will realize that I think that the basic idea of an ARPA-Energy program is a really good idea. We need to have a new commitment to finding alternative ideas that are not constrained by having to live within the definitions of the existing boundaries within the Department of Energy. But, having said that, there is a concern with modeling it too closely on DARPA. (The Department of Defense version). There has been an increasing trend by Federal Agencies to believe that problems can be solved thorough funding a very limited number of Research Centers. The premise being that if enough money is thrown at a select few, that the answer will be forthcoming. This often ends up giving those that are well-connected an inside track, and generally means that those that are not, regardless of the worth of their ideas, do not get funded.
As one illustration of this during the days of the last Energy Crisis the response was to give large chunks of money to “our brightest scientists” – which were considered to be those at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Well, apart from a little work on lunar and Martian mining, at the time they had no idea about fossil fuel extraction, and how to enhance it. But they got the money, and so spent time trying to learn about the business, while those more knowledgeable in this particular area did not.
Now there is nothing wrong with getting bright people to take a new look at a situation – often new creative approaches can be formed – but it is inefficient and we really may not have the mindset to conceive of the silver bb of an idea that comes from a chemist in Idaho, or a minerals processing person in Baton Rouge. Thus, what I would hope would happen if the idea is brought to pass (in itself perhaps questionable), is that some provision be made to solicit and fund (say at $100,000 for a year) a broad suite of ideas. The premise being that most will be found not to work, but by encouraging creative thought, the ones that do can be winnowed and encouraged. (Along the lines of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 funding that the SBIR program follows at NSF, but with a much smaller threshold to be met for Phase 1 funding). Do I expect that to happen? Well, No! But Spring might finally be here and for an afternoon it is nice to dream.
Oh, and if you get the chance, put in a good word for H.R. 364. It would not hurt to contact your Member of Congress, your senator, or anyone in the executive branch who might listen. It never hurts.
http://www.house.gov/ (click "write your representative")
http://www.senate.gov/ (click "find your senators")
http://www.doe.gov
http://www.whitehouse.gov
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive/EOP.shtml (The Executive Office of the President, links)
HO,
Thanks for the article and for sharing your thoughts. When I see these types of moves to look for new technolgy my first reaction is optomistism. when I think a little longer I wonder if Technology can save us. To me, the primary question is, Are we in Overshoot? I believe that this is a conversation worth having. If so, all of the technology in the world will not mitigate the final result. In fact, alternative means to keep going like we are in a non-negotiable life style even in third world countries will probably make things worse.
We have 6.5 billion people and I believe a large number of them will endure a great deal of suffering. With technical achievements to circumvent Peak Oil Crisis, eventually we will have 8 or 9 Billion when the crash does occur. The end result is a greater net amount of suffering. I suppose Human nature dictates that is ok, as long as I am not the one who suffers. New technologies may allow us to delay the recognition that the fundamental problem is we have just too many people.
Thanks again for sharing,
ej
Too many "technological" solutions these days. It would be a nice pork barrel project for someone I suppose. In terms of effectiveness, how about if we think about ancient technology instead? If houses were 1950s-sized and made of superinsulating hay bales -- hay bale houses from 100 years ago are still standing -- they would require virtually no fuel to heat. Build them within walking distance of local trains (150 year old technology) instead of scattered all over the countryside -- just look at any town/city in Europe built before 1950 -- and you wouldn't need a car. OK, I'll take compact-fluorescent lighting instead of whale oil lamps. No need to be too retro about it.
How about if we think about how the Romans lived in Rome? That was 2000 years before the internal combustion engine. Then we can add a sprinkling of new technology like the internet, solar panels, good plumbing, a decent rail line, etc. It's not really all that hard.
Concur---
If super athletes can ride across america(raam) in 7-10 days, on there bike's... then surely we could all live much better on 1/2, 1/3, even 1/8 th the oil., if we REALLY tried
Between the times of the Romans to 1910, the streets were choked with the toxic exhaust from everybody's personal transportation vehicles. Their engines of course are known as as a horse.
The idea that everybody was in walking distance to a train is just untrue. Everybody wanted and used personal transportation even before the automobile.
Everybody wanted and used personal transportation even before the automobile
Untrue.
I live in the Lower Garden District, the upper middle class area when developed 1830s-1860 (I live in a second building on the lot, built 1890). One can still see the occasional marble step imbedded into the sidewalk to make it easier to mount into a carriage (about 1/block). Presumeably, this was for a taxi of the day. There is only one carriage house extant in the district (but multiple slave quarters).
The Garden District was the home of millionaires (in 1840 silver and gold dollars !) and many of the homes look it ! Yet (and I have counted) perhaps 1/8th have evidence of a carriage house.
Why ?
The St. Charles Streetcar Line opened in 1834 (later the Prytania and Magazine lines as well). Plus a supremely walkable neighborhood.
Best Hopes,
Alan
First you build the railroad, and then you build the neighborhood around it. Then everyone is within walking distance of the train. This was the pattern of "suburban" development pre-Henry Ford.
If you go to urban areas in the rest of the developed world -- Paris, Milan, Frankfurt, Oslo, Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. -- people may still have cars but most of the transportation is done by train or sometimes bus. They only drive the cars every other weekend. That's one reason why the rest of the developed world uses 50% the energy-per-capita than people in the US. They aren't shivering in the dark either.
As a boy in 1910 in Germany, my father collected the horse manure from the streets of his town and sold it to local greenhouses. Most people at that time moved about by streetcar, but horses were important in commerce.
There were just a couple hundred million human beings on planet earth during the Roman empire. That's the entire globe. Today there are nearly 7 billion. There is no feasible way to return to a level of living akin to the Romans without killing off about 97% of the population. If you fail to understand this, then you fail to understand the core problem.
And worse, despite the way the Romans lived, Rome still collapsed, largely due to resource issues. Rome is not a viable model for the world, even if you do remove 97% of the population.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
I generally oppose "gadgetbahn", new (mainly urban) transportation technologies.
Why ?
As I have stated elsewhere, I would have supported funding them during Carter's second term; whilst convential rail solutions were being built out at good speed around the country.
Today, they are just a distraction from what needs to be done. They cannot work out the bugs & prove themselves in less than two decades (more likely three).
A good example of "breakthrough gadgetbahn" is the Westinghouse MetroMover in Miami. Adapt low cost bus technology, electrify it, build low cost structures OVER the streets of downtown Miami and run automated (no labor) electric mini-buses all around downtown Miami. Big name behind it. What is not to love ? So Miami built it.
For a variety of real world reasons, an unmitigated disaster !
That said, it would be worth refining and real world testing lower cost means of building Urban Rail cheaper. Portland (2002 $) could build track for $300/foot in street, 3 blocks every 3 weeks. New Orleans built VERY robust (500 year expected service life), VERY low maintenance but elegant streetcars in house. 24 for $1.5 million (2002-04) each (marginal cost ~$1 million after the first five). LR-55 needs a widescale trial to prove itself in service.
http://www.lr55.com/
"Research" into what changes are needed in US regulation & procurement in order to economically build much more rail much faster is BADLY needed. The French can do it is 3 or 4 years from a "Oui" in Paris to ribbon cutting. But, of course, they have the renowned French "Can Do" spirit, unlike the infamous American bureacucracy !
But new technology is not the key to solving our transportation issues post-Peak Oil (we just do not have time for a "breakthrough" IMHO). Simply building what we have, on the shelf, is !
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Best Hopes,
Alan
I am not as pessimestic as you regarding new technologies. I knew that algae has already been identified as a means for producing vegetable oil from the CO2 of utility plants. However, a demonstration plant was recently started up to demonstrate the technology on a commercial scale. See: http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/Big_Cajun_PR.pdf
I think that this technology can be fast-tracked to provide large volumes of vegetable oil. While other sources of vegetable oil (soy, rapeseed) only produce on the order of a 100 gallons per acre/year, algae can produce on the order of 10,000 gallons per acre per year - a very large output.
I don't think that we can avoid high energy prices in the shortterm (less than 10 years), but perhaps we can avoid the most hefty economic impacts that would otherwise occur during the following decades.
Retsel
HO,
Thank you for your post.
What's you're opinion on the X Prize Foundation? Better, worse route to spawn creativity?
It would be nice if government actually gave out corruption-free grants to folks who are doing honest research in solving the energy problem. Regretably, grants go to those who are connected and those who know how to fill in those endless bureaucratic forms.
What do you think about Al Gore's "Electranet"? (More here.)
I'm all for prizes. It keeps government out of the how and let's them focus on the what of energy technology -- which is usually less politicized.
One would expect that, as a survival mechanism, population increase would slow to fit the resource supply. Are there species that fit this idea in the animal kingdom? If mushrooms do it why can't we?
I believe Deer spontaneously abort when they are under resource stress. Best hopes for spontaneous abortions.
Or a fire at the Viagra plant...has anyone done a sperm count comparing the New York male and the average Appalachian mountain man? (hirsute-separate category)
Lots of species can fit poor environment. Our problem is that we aren't at a poor one yet.
Because we're not mushrooms?
Seriously, I urge you to assess the behaviors and consequences of overshoot in the vast majority of mammalian species and then come back here and tell me that humans are special and will somehow be exempt from the same consequences. Or will you join the ranks of those who can proudly say "We fool ourselves" despite the evidence in front of your nose?
If humans are not special and not exempt, then what do you see as the logical conclusion? Be careful though. If you think about such questions too long you may be forced into Jumping Off the Fence.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Read your two articles 'we fool ourselves', 'and jumping Off the fence' and find them very reasonable. I would add that possibly greater centralization, movement back to city life, would lower the rate which the population is growing.
About bio-diesel, I don't know how the energy values would compare but there might be some idea to use anaerobic methane production from all forms of human waste, particularly in a city situation. I may be wrong in my thinking but I tend to shudder when the talk of growing things to convert to liquid fuels rises. It stems from the idea that unless there is some way that the conversion results at least in a net equal energy position, without land destruction, it would be better to directly use the feedstock; as in ethanol, burn the corn directly for their BTU's rather than loose them in conversion.
You are right we are not mushrooms, there will be clever little mushrooms long after we have gone. ATB.
CrystalRadio, re: " I would add that possibly greater centralization, movement back to city life, would lower the rate which the population is growing. "
It may lower reproduction rates, but in a energy constrained future, I would not want to be in a city. Consolidation of population only works if the logistics of keeping a city alive don't break down. If the logistics fail you would literally be in deep doo-doo. Recall New Orleans/Katrina? That would be the fate of every city where logistics failed.
If I had to depend on my local environment for shelter, food, water, waste disposal, etc. , then survival in reasonable comfort would be infinitely easier in a rural setting.
Then you are arguing for a global population no greater than 700 million, which was the global population right before the beginning of the industrial era. And, further, that population lived in absolute squalor for the vast majority with short, ugly, diseased, and brutish lives interrupted only by the occasional war that rumbled through the countryside.
If you want comfort, you have to drive global population around 100 million, something approaching the 20 million in North America before the Europeans came would be near max.
So tell me - who are you going to kill to get your population down to where it needs to be for you to have safety and decency in a rural life?
Oh, you're not going to address this problem? Well then nature will address it. And your rural abode is no more proof against what nature will throw at us than a city is. If you naively think "life in the country" is going to save your ass, then you have no idea of what may be coming, if we cannot stabilize population and then stabilize the ecosystem around us.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
While I hope not by my son's generation but maybe in that magical 7th generation we could aspire to 700 million... Greece had a golden age with only a million, or was that half a million?... dunno coz my civilize is almos 7 billious an after 3 is many and P.O. is generally understood as merely an abbreviation for get lost jerk.
Cities have been around for 5500 years. Only an American would believe that cities didn't exist until after World War II. Some of them were pretty grotty, but we have better plumbing these days.
As well we not only still have the opposable thumb which has been around things even longer, we have slaves we call the electric drill and the Skilsaw which are much more dependable than Solly the sullen.
.....yeah, yeah......I'll get back to ya' when I see a zebra taking a birth control pill.....:-)
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
There are not that many zebras left in the world today. In fact, if you add up ALL of the primates, except for homo sapiens, there are an estimated 300,000 of them TOTAL around the world, Roger. Yet there are 200,000 homo sapiens born per day. Something is badly wrong here, Roger, and it is not the other primates, is it?
Despite the rise of contraception there has been no significant slowdown in global birth rates. The government lackeys who do these studies "assume" that people will eventually become as wealthy as the west and reduce their birth rates, yet even in the US we still have a 1% growth rate. That's from 300 million in 2006 to 600 million in 2076 to 1.2 billion in 2146.
And unlike oil, we have a very clear handle on population growth yet nothing is being done to stop it. Yet population growth is a far larger problem than peak oil.
Thankfully though, peak oil will help solve the population problem, Roger, though I doubt you will approve of the solution.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
I doubt there is a direct connection between birthrates and wealth since birthrates and total fertility have been dropping in virtually all nations regardless of religion, politics, economics, education, or anything else. Very likely it will be too little, too late to avert major die-offs but I'd like to at least see some factual accuracy when discussing the matter.
World Birthrates by region
World TFR by region
Global population was 3,040,617,514 in 1960, 4,447,068,714 in 1980, 6,073,265,234 in 2000, and 6,605,046,992 projected for mid-year 2007.
If you care to do the math, that's a 1.92% growth rate from 1960 to 1980, a 1.74% growth from 1960 to 2000, and a 1.66% growth rate from 1960 to 2007. It's coming down but it's still well above doubling every 70 years. At current rates it will double again (to almost 13 billion people) by 2050.
UN projections call for world population to cap out near 9 billion by 2050. I don't see the birth rate falling fast enough to achieve that yet.
What are the units of your graph? What is your data source? I've given you mine - the US Census Bureau.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
GreyZone,
Does look pretty hopeless, maybe all we can realistically do is something in the form of leaving a Rosetta stone. Which can be very easily done we'll just put some bleachers out in the sun and leave it out on route 61.
To put that in context: starting with drawings it would not be a stretch to describe in sequence basic technology that would allow the relatively speedy recapture of the knowledge our age of energy has produced, no matter how far we mighty have fallen or even if it is us that are around. Maybe pill popping Zebras will pick up the threads...they are pretty zippy dressers as well, no?
The information comes from World Resources Institute at
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=4
I would guess that they are the same data gathered by and used by the UN given that the dates begin ~1950.
Sorry about the units. I think the birthrate is number of live births/1000 population. Total fertility is avg. number of children per woman of child-bearing age. TFR is the main leading indicator of future birth rates.
Given the non-linear behavior of the rates, leveling off of population by 2050 seems a reasonable assumption (though I haven't done this kind of math in 40 years, I suspect the 2050 date was arrived at mathematically). The assumption is obviously based only on the math and likely does not take into account Peak Oil, peak food, global warming impacts, pandemics, and on and on, all of which IMO become more likely as time goes on.
My general take on the trends is that humans do respond to overcrowdedness and shortages of resources by limiting family size, just likely not quickly enough.
ET
Humans are smarter than yeast, but not by enough.
BEST tag line yet ! LMAO !
Funny because it is true.
Best Hopes for a wide delta between yeast & human behavior,
Alan
ET,
I once saw a documentary 'Rat City' on TV circa 1980. I do not know how valid the science was but it apparently was an experiment in population density using rats. The rats were given unlimited access to food and water with the only stricture being the size of the 'city', about the size of an average living room. What was shown was the behavior of the rats as population increased until a certain density was reached when there was an automatic and complete die off of all the rats. Like I say I don't know how valid this research was.
BTW I do like your 'designation' as ET but has anyone mentioned that doing a word search to find you is difficult?
Also am trying this in what is called 'reply in new window' so don't know what this will look like anyway beaming somewhere...
If you study biology, mammals, and overshoot, you become aware of General Adaptation Syndrome. GA Syndrome occurs whenever mammals are under stress. One side effect of GAS is lowered fertility. GAS appears to kick in within populations in overshoot before the peak of the population is reached. This causes population curves to slow and level out near the peak rather than experiencing a sudden drop. (Note that this slowing is also a function of the contest for available resources.)
Are people responding? Or are their bodies responding to the overall stress of absurd human densities? And don't say these are not absurd. Are you even in a position to rationally consider this if you were born and have lived your entire existence inside the context of a biological overshoot event?
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
HO,
Thanks for the post.
Although I have not been politically very active, I intend to write my congressmen/women on this bill.
There is no question that we need some major push forward. A "Man on the Moon" type effort would be a start. I'm not optimistic with this administration, but maybe the tide is turning.
Thank goodness for people like Congressman Bartlett.
Regarding the comment about the "gadgetbahn," there is no doubt that whatever efforts are initiated, some of the money will be wasted. It's inevitable. But, we can't do nothing in the face of the possibility of imminent Peak Oil and deteriorating energy security. Embarking on a massive effort where, say, only 50% of it turns out to be useful is lightyears ahead of doing nothing at all. I might add that for the money thrown away with incompetence in Iraq, we could have launched at least a couple large efforts in alternative energy and transport.
We know how to spend many billions with only the waste that normally comes from gov't contracts (and that can minimized) on solutions that we KNOW work TODAY !
I have developed a list of $135 to $175 billion of "Ready to Go", "On The Shelf" Urban Rail projects. We can electrify our freight railroads as fast as we can string wire (say 25,000 miles of high volume rail lines @ $2.5 - $3 million/mile) without gov't contracting or research (other than translating German, French, Japanese & Russian); just incentives.
With billions that are not being spent on mature technologies that can provide the US with a non-oil transportation backbone; why waste $$ and time looking for something "better" that will not be widespread for decades ?
Once we are spending @ $50+ billion/year in proven solutions, then R&D for long term improvements makes sense. Until then, R & D should not be our highest priority.
We have viable solutions available today, we are just not building them ! Instead we pretend that there are no solutions "on the shelf"# and we must look for them.
Best Hopes for Rational Planning,
Alan
# Electrified rail is NOT the totality of all solutions that we need. But it is hard to justify investing $ for long term (decades +) potential solutions whilst ignoring what can be done today.
The results to date of gov't energy research are quite disappointing. The one major success in renewable energy since 1973; wind turbines, owes little or nothing to gov't sponsered reasearch grants.
HV DC transmission, pumped storage (hydro) and wind turbines are all workable technologies today. Pumped storage (air) MIGHT work economically.
Pumped storage (hydro) is mature; very little improvement is possible. HV DC can be improved some still and wind turbines are still on a learning curve but commerical interests have, and will, steadily improve them.
Other than some pumped storage (air) R & D, there does not seem much of a role for gov't R & D is expanding the most readily available renewable energy future.
Best Hopes,
Alan
No R&D really necessary for compressed or liquid gas storage. The tech is pretty well worked out as far as equipment.