 | Olduvai 2008 movie | The Oil Drum: Europe | Why wind needs feed-in tariffs (and why it is not the enemy of nuclear) |  |
Andris Piebalgs' Blog
Posted by Euan Mearns on March 2, 2008 - 10:01pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: andris piebalgs, biofuel, energy commissioner, energy efficiency, eu, renewable energy [list all tags]
Andris Piebalgs is the European Energy Commissioner with responsibility for shaping European Union (EU) energy policy. These policies may then be adopted by the European Parliament and will effectively shape Europe's energy future.
Mr Piebalgs has an informative web site where he has newly installed a blog inviting comments on EU energy policy.
I would like to invite all my fellow bloggers and all citizens to contribute your ideas.
Andris, I would like to thank you for providing us bloggers with this wonderful opportunity to relay our ideas and opinions directly into the heart of the European Parliament. But beware, not all ideas and opinions are born equal.
There's more under the fold.....
I have left a lengthy comment trying to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency:
Andris Piebalgs said:
“I would like 2008 to be the European year of Energy Efficiency. I’m proposing to table measures to increase energy efficiency in our buildings, in our energy devices, in the way we consume energy. What are your ideas?”
To which I replied:
I agree whole heartedly with this but need to draw attention to one glaring omission. The most important energy efficiency measure to consider is the efficiency of energy gathering / energy production systems. This must lie at the very heart of EU energy policy IMHO. And once this idea is taken on board then we will be on the road to our salvation.
The policy page says this:
Our sustainable future largely depends on increased use of renewable energies. The European Commission has proposed and the European Council has endorsed an overall binding 20% renewable energy target and a binding minimum target of 10% for transport biofuels for the EU by 2020. That means that in 2020 one fifth of the energy and one tenth of all transport fuels consumed in the EU will have to come from renewable energy sources.
My immediate reaction to this is one of unreserved endorsement combined with disbelief with respect to the biofuels targets. Until a way is found to grow temperate latitude biofuels with eroei over 7 that do not threaten our food supplies then my opinion is that further development of biofuels should be abandoned until such time. Internal combustion engines are at best 40% efficient. Thus taking bio ethanol with eroei of 1.5 and burning it in this way is tantamount to simply burning food piles for no beneficial reason.
This also caught my eye:
Technology will play a central role in achieving the targets of the new Energy Policy for Europe. For this reason the Commission will annually invest approximately €1 billion between 2007 and 2013 in energy technology research and innovation. Technology must help to lower the costs of renewable energy, increase the efficient use of energy and ensure that European industry is at the global forefront. The Commission will therefore prepare the first European Strategic Energy Technology Plan in 2007.
That is some €7 billion. Let us hope the money is spent wisely. I would feel inclined to replace "lower the cost of renewable energy" with "improve and prioritise the efficiency of renewable energies" - and then we will be on the right track.
And so if you were given an opportunity to give advice to the EU Energy Commissioner, what would you say? Post comments for discussion here or visit Andris Piebalgs' blog to tell him directly what you think. Remember this will be a rolling debate that will take place over many months that may hopefully culminate in the building of a trans European HVDC grid and electrification of all our transportation.
Let me join Euan welcoming Andris Piebalgs to the blogsphere.
I hope this initiative helps bringing to the Energy Commission the sense of urgency needed to properly address the current energy crisis triggered by the depletion of fossil fuels.
The United States are already diving into serious economic trouble, so far Europe has been shielded by a strong currency that has kept energy imports relatively affordable. This situation will not last forever, we must make haste.
TheOilDrum:Europe has had (and will certainly continue to have) its part on the European Construction, bringing together concerned Europeans on the matters of Energy and the Future in general. May this new blog have a similar role and bring closer EU leaders and its citizens.
In my opinion, the first and foremost card we have to play is conservation. This helps in so may ways, its hard even to list all the benefits in a small comment.
I would like to buy a car that does 100 mpg and costs no more than 5000 euro, excl tax.
The technology is available, all it takes is to create a market. Although oil is currently 67 Euro / barrel, this is not enough to convince people and carmakers that this is the way to go.
My proposal would be to increase the gas-tax and lower the income tax. That way, people can choose and car manufacturers are encouraged to build such a fuel-efficient car.
This is going to be politically difficult. Gas is about 0.50 euro per liter, but you pay 1.50 at the pump. tax would have to increase by 0.50 euro (=50% extra) in order to reduce significantly gas usage. Or at least stop growing.
And no subsidies please. Please stop the biodiesel craze. If we would substitute 5% of our transportation fuel with biodiesel, we would have to replace 20-40% of our agricultural land-use for this. This is nonsense.
I am an American, but I attempt to stay up to date on European developments in energy and technology.
I would ask of Commissioner Piebalg:
Please consider The Club of Rome Initiative:
http://www.trecers.net/
This is the most forward thinking large scale renewable initiative available to not only assure a modern future for Europeans, but to assist in bringing the people of North Africa and the Middle East into a modern age of greater prosperity and more humane international relations.
The American (North and South) could create a similiar North American/South American integrated renewable initiative, but to this point has shown no willingness to think in terms of an integrated and potentially prosperous future for the new world. We must hope that the Europeans and North Africa will lead the world by example. Thank you.
RC
The uncomfortable truth appears to be that of all the developed powers Europe is the most committed to solving PO and GW. Other countries such as US, Canada and Australia talk big but do little. Perhaps if Europe had more coal and tar sands they would weaken their resolve, with or without Piebalgs. In Australia's case there is a rush to embrace tree planting offsets banned by the EU http://www.abc.net.au/landline/ with the same kind of flakey enthusiasm reserved for corn ethanol in US.
I also suspect Europe will be the first to carbon tax goods made in China if there is no emissions control in that country. I say keep up the good work.
Comment posted, although looking at the words and tone used, I'd suggest Andris is a typical career politician that will do the minimum possible to serve out his term. I see no great spark that would mark him out as being anything more - all plans and dictating, no action.
About Andris Piebalgs:
He is exactly 1 month , 2 days older than I and has 50% more children. Born exactly 54 years and 3 months before the date of global peak oil production he may well be equally concerned about his and his family's future. A Latvian, Physicist, School Teacher - holding Europe's energy destiny in his hands - may well be seeking expert opinion from the broad European academic, industrial and commercial world that is the readership of TOD.
Whilst I am naturally deeply cynical, in this instance we need to give this initiative every chance of success. At the very least, all the technical advice and expert opinion that will now be offered to the EU Commission will be there for all to see - so long as they manage to get through their moderating backlog (the comment I posted Saturday a.m. was no. 23) - and for us to discuss.
Lets hope moderation doesn't turn into censorship!
I've had to deal with EU bureaucrats before, so let's just say my cynicism reaches the molten core of the planet. Extremely political and thus anyone you see in a position of power is adept at maintaining altitude on the greasy pole. Facts and evidence tend to come somewhere lower in importance than the catering budget.
Still, hope for the best and expect the worst.
Svieks, Piebalgs Kungs
Follow up to Davidyson comment from previous thread on
syncrude EROEI:
1 barrel of crude oil = 5.8 MBtu
1 cubic feet of natural gas = 1020 Btu
1400 cubic feet of natural gas = 1.43 MBtu
5.8:1.43 gives 4.1:1 EROEI (with only natgas input)
From http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/sustainability2004/environment_health_...
Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
Syncrude did not meet its target for energy efficiency in 2004. Performance was 1.35 million
BTUs per barrel of oil produced versus the target of 1.26. Contributing factors included
higher than expected natural gas consumption at the Aurora mine due to the start-up of
Auroras second production train, lower than planned bitumen recovery and high energy
consumption caused by unplanned outages of major production equipment.
Mr Troll, if correct, your analysis is helpful. Very narrow bound gives a maximum eroei that also demonstrates exposure to resiliance. Taking into account embedded energy in infrastructure and transportation costs etc may reduce the 4.1 significantly?
This chart I posted the other day shows the utter futility of pursuing these low eroei energy sources - tar sands and biofuels - since we are simply pissing away vast amounts of energy in pursuit of that receding horizon.
These activities are being pursued to extend the life of our ICE based auto fleet - and here in lies the real danger. Every year that passes is one year less to start replacing this fleet with electric vehicles.
Syncrude and biofuels are merely sticking plasters on a ruptured aorta.
Power generation from coal generated by mine mouth power plants is more efficient in terms of BTU's per euro than oil, natural gas, or syncrude. Much of the world is inhibited by carbon taxes and lack of domestic coal from realizing the tremendous monetary advantages of having and using coal. There is a major problem in switching to electric cars. You might cause brown outs, black outs, rolling blackouts, days without electricity etc. There are problems in growth areas with existing electrical infrastructure becoming insufficient and a need to put more power producing facilities online while building more transmission lines. Like the previous call for biodiesel, ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol; the switch to electric cars is lacks forsight. You simply do not have the infrastructre to sustain a major switch in many parts of the world. One may see the current inefficiency of syncrude in EROEI compared to light onshore crude and new conventional gas fields, yet the advantage of syncrude is expected to shift in time as the older oil fields give out, smaller new fields give out, and shipyards cannot build enough semi-subs or floaters. The FSPO demand is expected to put additional cost factors on the EROEI deepwater equation. How many barrels of oil/tons of coal were consumed in manufacturing a floating storage and production tanker?
may i suggest one reads Shai Agassi's blog (http://shaiagassi.typepad.com/)
here we see someone who has gathered $200mln in seed capital, full cooporation of the Israel gov't and the Renault Nissan's CEO promise to deliver EV's (Megane sedan) in 3 yrs, with CSP as the electricity source of choice
nowadays he's visiting other countries to follow Israel in an open source / franchise model
as i see it, this approach works well enough to get started; he wouldn't have come this far when the obvious issues like grid capacity couldn't be addressed
the EU would be in for quite a ride when curiousity would lead: http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2008/3/1/165118/0209/2#2
Emil Möller
If I install a solar power system on my house I can run my electric car on that. Thereby reducing strain on public infrastructure. That is my plan, it will work for me, can it be applied in any way to "the big picture".
Euan,
Great way to illustrate the concept of eroei, but a quibble. Shouldn't the line intersect the x axis at eroei of 1 (break even, all energy used to produce energy), not 0?
Welaka - you are correct. However, the scale on this chart actually runs from 1 to 50. I've checked my spread sheet and there is no easy way to modify the chart.
One more time, since this is the heart of the anti ethanol and bio fuels debate:
EROEI is an invalid except when it compares like to like as in apples to apples. Different fuels have different characteristics. Oil is finite and when it is gone it can not be replaced. Comparing ethanol to oil is an invalid concept. Leaving out the price factor which is critical to resource allocation compounds the error since there is no way to compensate for the reduced energy in ethanol. The fantasy of finding another energy source with the density of oil is unrealistic except in the form of conservation.
Electric cars using the grid are not the solution since electricity, unless produced by wind or nuclear, has a lower EROEI, if you insist on using that fallacious argument, than ethanol. Most American electricity is not nuclear or wind. Electricity use compounds the inefficiency of fossil fuel conversion with a high price and limited availability on a mass scale, since I doubt the grid could handled electric cars when it is overloaded already during peak periods by heater use in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. I use LP gas as a back up to my corn stove. LP has become so expensive that electricity is now very comparable price wise. In the near future more people will be using electricity to heat single rooms with space heaters. The grid will not be able to support this and cars too.
My favorite solution is hybrid cars running on a mixture diesel and biodiesel or gasoline and ethanol. This should work for some time until until the steep drop of post Peak Oil sets in. There is no permanent sustainability solution just as there is no solution that makes our individual lives sustainable and avoids death.
Practical and Rainsong - I believe Chris Vernon once reported that the official UK position was that UK electricity supply would have to grow by 20% to accommodate a total electrification of transportation (I'm not 100% sure of my facts here).
You are right that burning coal in old generating plant at 30% efficiency and using that electricity in transportation makes little sense.
My current thinking is that all this old inefficient plant has to be shut in favor of multi fuel combined heat and power systems that are 90% efficient - using coal base load topped up with urban waste and bio mass.
This is not crazy because I believe the Danes have already done this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/C3F9F1D4-BEA9-4C29-A1FD-1D7CC861...
This system will produce 1/3 the CO2 and 3 times the power / energy for the same FF input.
We obviously cannot switch to electrical transportation - but at some point it is absolutely inevitable that we need to start phasing it in.
There is an order of magnitude difference in the electrical demands. depending upon the route taken for "Electrification of Transportation".
The Tube in London is not a major part of the electrical demand of London (certainly not even 10%, doubtful if 1%) but it is a major part of transportation in London.
High enough efficiency of electrified transportation is, in contradiction of practicals dictum, sustainable (if the rest of society can become sustainable).
Best Hopes for High Efficiency Electrified Transportation,
Alan
London Underground electricity consumption:
- no. 1 electricity consumer in the London area
- consumption c. 1.1 TWh p.a.
- accounts for c. 3.5% of the electricity consumed in City of London
Climate/energy performance per service unit:
- CO2 emissions/passenger kilometre: 68.9 g/km
- CO2 emissions avg. 0.47kg/passenger journey
- c. 150 Wh/passenger km
-
Ref:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/environmental-report-2007.pdf
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/environmental-report-2006.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_10_44/ai_n6257715
accounts for c. 3.5% of the electricity consumed in City of London
I think that should be "in Greater London". Technically the City of London is a tiny bit in the very centre of London, with only 10,000 residents, as opposed to the 7.5 million living in Greater London.
No. City of London.
Not London Metropolitan Area.
I think the problem may be if people charge their vehicles on mass when they get home from work. The peak load would be immense. A break in a major tv programme has brought the grid close to collapse when all the kettles are swiched on at once. The system has evolved with London underground electrification in place and can therefore cope.
That's why you give the utility control over the vehicle chargers, and let people specify if they want to pay the basic rate to have the car recharged just enough to get to work by morning, a higher rate to have it fully charged by morning, or premium price to have it fully charged ASAP.
As regards ethanol, Three things:
1. There are incredible amounts of fertile, arable land lying fallow, or greatly underutilized in the world. ex. One third of the U.S. (780 million acres) is broadly categorized as "grazing" land. Of the approx. 440 million acres that are categorized as "cropland," only 246 million acres are actually row-cropped. We pay farmers NOT to farm 36 million acres of that land that is categorized as "cropland."
President Lula estimates that Brazil has about 150 Million acres of fertile land lying fallow. Just imagine the rest of S America, and Africa.
2. With the amount of process heat that is being derived, more, and more, from the feedstocks the EROEI is "Exploding" for ethanol.
3. Due to the new engines' ability to harness the much greater OCTANE of ethanol the biofuel will be able to replace gasoline on a one to one basis.
Oh, one Other thing: With biofuels' ability to plow the CO2 produced back into the ground via biochar, and other means, acidic soils in the Americas, and Africa can be made fertile for the first time.
We're not in nearly as bad a shape as some would think, I believe.
Actually, the dramatically lower net energy balance is just the lungs of the anti-ethanol debate. The heart is the absolute non-scalability of non-energy inputs like water, soil, and GHG sink capacity. Joules Burn earlier posted links to these 2 new articles in SCIENCE, pointing out how bad scaling of biofuels is for Greenhouse gas emissions. I have a similar paper pending on the water requirements for biofuels vis-a-vis conventional fossil fuels.
The First Rule for a life cycle analysis is to use the most recent data. Neither of these thesis did that. The Head of the Department at Iowa State even refused to sign off on that study.
They completely ignored modern farming methods (76% of corn is grown using "no till" farming; and, the idea that trees would be cut down in Brazil (with 150 Million acres of fertile land lying fallow) to plant soybeans is ludicrous (the illegal logging is carried out to get the logs. Later, come the "grazers," and only then do a few subsistence farmers try to get a couple of years of crops out of the substandard, stripped land before it's allowed to return to forest.
As for Indonesia, and Palm oil, they seem to ignore the fact that the palms planted retake the CO2 that's given off when the old trees are used as fuel in the process, or, in the near future, converted into ethanol.
It was a couple of strangely out-dated scenarios that make it hard to overlook the fact that the nature conservancy is supported by, two big oil companies (who have permanent seats on the board. Oh, and Searchinger? He has a Doctorate of Jures Degree, I believe.
It was effective advocacy; BUT, it wasn't Science.
They both made it through SCIENCE peer review, which I can attest, is not an easy feat.
Perhaps this review of paper by the National Academy of Science, that uses most recent data, might have been a better link:
The Implications of Biofuel Production on Water for United States Water Supplies
I agree; water will be a long-term concern (with, or without, ethanol.) The gist of the article seemed to be that it looks okay, now; but, we need to keep an eye on things. I, again, agree.
The study was done before corn ethanol was capped at 15 Billion Gallons. I believe that knowledge would have mitigated some of their concerns.
The fact that only about 15% of corn is irrigated, and that the refineries don't really use all that much water (I believe Minnesota, with all their ethanol refineries, found that they used more water irrigating golf courses than producing ethanol,) and that it's hard to imagine anyone irrigating switchgrass means, I believe, that this won't be a terribly worrying subject.
Look, water is going to be something we concentrate on, more and more, in the future. It just doesn't look like biofuels is going to be a Huge factor in those calculations.
Here is my comment to his blog I send just now. Currently there are no replies on his blog and my comment is 'wayting moderation'. I assume a lot of people here will be writing replies and he's going to get a flood from us on the first day :)
It's interesting to see which comments get moderated...
A contrary argument: The biosphere will outlive all human endeavors. Human society is not possible without human life, and human life is not possible without a functioning biosphere. Biofuel feed stocks exist as a renewable resource in a functioning biosphere whether we use them or not. In short, the biosphere IS. Our job is to figure out how to live within it, because we certainly can't live without it.
Whilst there is no doubt that ethanol has evolved and developed a symbiotic relationship with Homo-sapiens - and I foresee my consumption increasing exponentially from here. I'm not sure this extends to producing liquid fuel for a several hundred thousand V8 engines.
While it is true that ethanol is a biofuel, biofuel is most definitely not ethanol only. Where did I say anything in support of ethanol? Biofuel is also fire wood, wood chips, corn stover, rice straw, etc. Every biofuel that I have investigated has its own special properties and limitations. Lumping them all together in a sweeping rejection is, IMO, unwise.
Moderation may be a form of sensorship?
cheers
So, now that the blog is up and running with the comments, did everyone's contribution get posted?
I think so. If anyone's comment did not get posted they could comment here - and we can have a debate about censorship.
It will be interesting to see how they progress from here.
There seem to be a number of common themes among the comments - though I may be biased in latching on to those close to my own heart.
My comment on the blog (awaiting moderation)
I am staying near DC working with Millennium Institute till paper is finished,
Alan
alan -what is Riga?
and no offense, but if USA in 30 years is largest economy, how does the model account for aspiration gap of chinese and indian subcontinent? i am sure millenium institute models are as good or better than anything going on energy, but how can they include net energy, real geopolitics, impact of increasing GINI coefficient, and reaction to people that are unaccustomed to sacrifice, etc. I think what youre doing is great, but its subject to Liebigs Law of the minimum input into the model, which is human nature. Dont know how to address this other than permanently addressing the demand side, as opposed to supply side
Nate, Riga is the capital of the Baltic state of Latvia.
Antoinetta III