DrumBeat: October 25, 2006
Posted by threadbot on October 25, 2006 - 9:18am
Topic: Miscellaneous
From the Financial Times: An unsustainable outlook
As major oil discoveries become rarer and as motorists face the highest petrol bills in a generation, the debate over whether the world is running out of oil is again rearing its head.In books, speeches and articles, and particularly on the internet, the doomsayers – known as “peak oil” theorists – are warning that the world’s oilfields are on the decline and will soon be unable to match mankind’s insatiable appetite for energy.
Global warming: Here come the lawyers Why Detroit, Big Oil, and utilities should worry about the next wave of suits.
Royal Dutch looking very bullish on oil
If you think oil prices are going into the toilet, think again. Royal Dutch Shell's $7.7-billion attempt to take Shell Canada private says the cheap oil scenario -- dreaded by investors, cherished by SUV drivers and politicians -- will be short-lived or won't happen. As far as bullish indicators go, this one's a beaut.
Climate change 'will threaten Britain's water supply'
Plutonium Or Greenhouse Gases? Weighing The Energy Options
Can nuclear energy save us from global warming? Perhaps, but the tradeoffs involved are sobering: thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste generated each year and a greatly increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or diversion of nuclear material into terrorists' hands.
When it comes to global warming, market rule poses a mortal danger
Ethiopia: Ministries Looking to Alternative Fuel
As the price of fuel increases on the international oil market, Ethiopia has set its sights on ethanol and bio-diesel to guarantee the supply of affordable fuel in the future.
World's Third Largest Refinery Damaged by Fire
Reliance officials said the fire started on Wednesday morning and damaged a hydrotreater which removes sulphur from heavy feedstock.
Clean, green oil sands seen as affordable: Industry could be 'carbon neutral,' report says.
Leading utility companies urge action to reverse unsustainable trends
Today, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), along with eight of the world's leading electric utility companies, released Powering a Sustainable Future (PDF, 14 Mb), a report which contains an "agenda for concerted action" to secure future electricity generation, to bring more power to more people and to decrease the industry's greenhouse gas emissions.
The Emerging Russian Giant: Moscow plays its cards strategically
Global warming a hot topic for personal finances
"The US, in essence, borrows about US$2 billion a day, every day, principally from Asian states, to finance its consumption..."The single largest category of imports is the US$1 billion a day borrowed to import oil. The accumulating debt increases the risk of a flight from the dollar or major increases in interest rates."
Russia prolongs Shell project probe, may prosecute
Marine energy cash made available
Wave and tidal energy developers are being encouraged to apply for cash under the Scottish Executive's £8m marine energy programme.
Australia plans world's biggest space-age solar power station
Australia has announced plans to build the world's biggest space-age solar power station as part of a 500 million dollar (375 million US) radical rethink on climate change.
Where's the will to break energy status quo?
Berating the Kyoto Protocol for failing to cut greenhouse-gas emissions is a bit like kicking the dog at a party when someone passes wind. Sure, it's nice to skirt the blame, but don't fault the Kyoto accord for society's flatulence.
If House changes hands, oil drilling threat will recede
Gore stumps in Berkeley for oil production tax
Former Vice President Al Gore, calling global warming a worldwide crisis that requires immediate attention, urged Californians on Monday to approve Proposition 87, the ballot initiative to tax oil production to fund alternative fuel development.
A more efficient US? Energy agency prods only a bit
After a six-year delay, the Energy Department proposes standards so moderate that even some firms complain.
So why are environmentalists so happy that we’ve just found a new way to deforest the planet and plant monocultures? Why are the Americans in particular suddenly embracing biofuel as though it is the solution to everything from global warming to energy shortages?
DOE Offers $16 Million for Research In Power Electronics and Motors for PHEVs, HEVs and FCVs
Nothing to fear from a Bigfoot
Not merely do professional alarmists refuse to countenance economics, they staunchly avert their eyes from examining why doleful projections have been wrong in the past.
Ethanol producers hurt by lower oil prices
US Occupation of Iraq: A Reason to be Proud!
Motivated not so much by greed as by fear really, are they trying desperately to stave off an impending approach of the peak oil phenomenon?Is it their hope to grab up as much of the world's remaining fossil fuels as they can so that, when the wells begin to dry up, we Americans, along with those we call allies, will be assured an extra degree of comfort while the rest of the world scrambles about for diminishing supplies of heat, electricity, water, and food?
[Update by Leanan on 10/25/06 at 10:44 AM EDT]
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending October 20, 2006: Oil rises after crude inventories fall by 3.3 million barrels, expectation was for an increase of 2.1 million barrels.
Rick Merritt
EE Times
(10/17/2006 7:46 PM EDT)
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The big opportunity for solar energy is in utility plants, according to Vinod Khosla, who gave back-to-back keynotes on the subject here Tuesday (Oct 16.). The iconic venture capitalist who has started his own alternative energy investment company also stumped for California's Proposition 87, which would fund research into so-called clean technology.
"I now believe that thermal solar will be cheaper than coal-fired electricity plants. It is far more risky to build a coal-fired plant than a solar thermal one today," said Khosla, speaking at the Emerging Ventures conference.
Photovoltaic cells have made significant advances with thin film, multi-junction technology. Utilities represent an opportunity for solar energy that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, said Khosla, who earlier in the day he delivered a keynote at a solar power conference a block away that attracted an estimated 7,000 attendees.
Although many developers are pursuing the low-cost solar cells, Khosla said "that's exactly the wrong way to go.
"Solar systems would still cost $2 kiloWatt/hour if the cell cost went to zero. What we need are higher efficiency cells. We should be saying we will accept higher costs to get 30 percent efficient cells," he said.
Separately, Khosla spoke out in favor of California's Proposition 87 that would levy a fee on petroleum to be used in part to fund alternative energy technologies.
"This is probably going to be the most expensive race in the country this year," Khosla said, estimating oil companies have already spent $67 million attacking the measure and could spend $80-$100 million before the November vote.
Thirty percent of the Prop. 87 funds would go to university R&D, Khosla said. "Clean tech R&D has been declining in this country for 30 years. We absolutely need to have more R&D in this area," he said.
Another 57 percent of the Prop. 87 fees would be used to lower oil consumption, he added.
"Oil companies get a 500-percent depreciation on some assets. That's just one of a half dozen clauses I know of that are in effect subsidies for oil companies," he said.
Khosla is mainly known for funding a number of Silicon Valley's biggest ventures as a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers. He now devotes much of his time to the clean tech area which is the focus of Khosla Ventures. The new company has a broad portfolio of investments including bets on as many as eight alternative fuel companies.
"When oil went above $40 a barrel, a host of things became viable," said Khosla.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193303526
7,000 people on a conference about solar power. How many people go to conferences about PO? Here in Berlin 2 years ago at the ASPO workshop it was maybe 180...?
What are our conclusions about this differnce in numbers? Probably people are more interested in future trends than in moribund technologies?
The debates will continue on peak oil for several more years. We cannot wait for its ultimate resolution before action is taken. Solar will only be a part of the solution but has more ultimate promise than alternatives like ethanol. Solar may never be considered economically competitive. But we can't affort to debate it for ten more years while the planet warms.
For growing numbers of people, whether or not peak oil is here or will be here in 20 years is beside the point. Global warming is here and cannot be addressed by more oil consumption. A definitive proof that peak oil is here would be interesting and icing on the cake, but is not necessary to make the progress that needs to be made.
Good for California. Each of us needs urge our local representatives to follow suit, using California has an example.
If you have something you wish to say, and it is something I have taken a position on, by all means spit it out man.
I have never seen ANY posts on oil company subsidies.
Please link.
What hypocrites like you don't seem to appreciate is that any oil subsidies also subsidize the ethanol industry. That is, unless you can show me a tractor or semi running on the ethanol they produce. What you would find is that higher gasoline prices will force higher ethanol prices. Such is the hypocritical nature of ethanol advocates - undisputably receiving very generous subsidies for marginal energy creation - complaining about oil company subsidies that directly benefit them.
Clear enough?
You clearly favor oil company subsidies as you refuse to talk about them on this blog. You'd rather dwell ad nauseam (Latin, in case you don't understand) on ethanol whose subsidies have stayed at home, rather than being invested aboard in oilogolopolies . Do your own homework on the subsidies. Khosla has, it doesn't take a billionaire. Who cares if you want higher gas taxes, you still want all the power in the hands of your bosses. Not what I want.
No tax breaks were given to ethanol producers to run their tractors, etc on ethanol. So Because gas was cheap, they didn't bother. Things will change now, once they get educated. If oil companies will allow it.
I'm happy to see all oil subsidies lifted, regardless of what it does to ethanol industry. Then we'll see who survives. We're a pretty ingenious people when we wanna be. Why bother with gas taxes when you can lift all subsidies and watch prices rise! Then we'll have to go out and make our own cheap stuff!
As Khosla says, naysayers better stand back and get out of the way, because ethanol is coming and in a few years, it will be mostly sustainable, no thanks to oil industry obstructionism.
I'll believe it when I see it. The EROEI studies I've seen so far only make this worthwhile for Sugar in Brazil(Maybe). I've yet to see the data for corn ethanol or other North American crop that says this will be an energy positive investment. Consider also that crops rely heavily on oil/NG to plow, harvest, fertilize and pesticide their crops, I find it convenient that most Ethanol studies I've seen ignore the energy inputs of those actions.
Either it is, or it isn't, its kind of the same problem when people say, they're almost not pregnant. Mostly sustainable is another way to say not sustainable. You might argue it will take a long time for the degradation of the process to catch up with itself, but ultimately it is not sustainable if its only "mostly sustainable".
And you apparently clearly favor Ethanol without fair consideration to oil and how it impacts the ability of Ethanol to be viable. But hey, Kettle meet Pot.
I find it difficult to believe that one particular woody plant (sugar cane) growing on this planet earth and receiving similar solar radiation could be 4X as productive as corn, soy, etc. converting said radiation to similar mass.
Corn produces some protein and some oil, which don't get turned into ethanol. Reasonable corn yields require huge amounts of fertilizer, which requires a lot of energy to produce. Harvesting corn in the US is fairly energy-intensive also.
Sugarcane, on the other hand, produces carbohydrates with very little protein or fat, with less fertilizer input, and it is harvested with fewer energy inputs as well, at least in Brazil.
So while you may well be correct that the Brazilian numbers are inadequately documented, I don't think it is hard to believe that one crop might be vastly superior to another by this metric (EROEI) for ethanol production.
While I suspect the root of this oppositionalism is a well justified concern over the broader impacts of biofuels, I think perpetrating falsehood about ethanol EROEI is the wrong way to deal with the real potential problems of biofuels.
Here are several links that all cite figures of positive 8-10 EROEI for ethanol from sugar cane, none of which come from the Brazilian government. I have posted these for pstarr several times, but he continues to ignore them or attempt to discredit them, without opening the documents. The studies address EROEI, land use, environmental and climate impacts and other issues in detail.
There are good points and bad points to ethanol and biofuels. Potential deforestation from biodiesel is so bad as to justify a halt to all palm-based fuel immediately. The article linked at the top of this thread has several other links that discuss these very real issues. But his willfully inaccurate assault on the EROEI of sugar cane-based ethanol is not helping this cause.
Here are three studies
IEA Automotive Fuels for the Future
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/autofuel99.pdf
IEA: Biofuels for Transport
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf
Worldwatch Institute & Government of Germany: Biofuels for Transport (Link to register - study is free)
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4078
Potential for Biofuels for Transport in Developing Countries
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2006/01/05/000090341_20060105 161036/Rendered/PDF/ESM3120PAPER0Biofuels.pdf
The truth will win out.
I admit I'm a skeptic too, but then I also readily admit I'm not a biologist of biofuels expert, hence the "(Maybe)" I appended to my statement about Brazilian sugar cane. But sugar cane in relation to US demand is inconsequential, as A) we can't grow sugar cane like the Brazilians can, and B) Even if we could, several people have stated we would still need to curb our appetite for liquid fuels as it can't replace current oil consumption.
So we are left with Corn, which currently is in the middle of a firestorm of debate about its viability. Not saying we shouldn't explore corn ethanol at all, but pending our futures on an untested "maybe" doesn't seem smart to me, when we do know of models which could allow us to maintain a modern standard of living albeit a different looking one. Mainly accomplished by bussing/trolley systems, light rail, heavy rail, and an effort to bolster and improve our electricity grid along with localizing electricity generation via solar, wind,
Yet another person who doesn't understand what an ad hominem actually is. Look it up. And ad hominem is when you starting casting aspersions on my arguments by making false accusations against me, like "you must be getting paid to do this."
You clearly favor oil company subsidies as you refuse to talk about them on this blog.
So, you ask me about oil company subsidies; I tell you I am against them; and you announce that I clearly favor them. If you think you already know the answers, and aren't willing to listen, why bother asking the question?
I have no trouble at all talking about oil company subsidies. Show a case where I "refuse to talk about them." You have been guilty of having your facts wrong on a great number of occasions, and this is just another example.
I would also point out that you and Blume were claiming oil company subsidies equivalent to the entire federal budget of the U.S. government. I don't consider you exactly the most credible source out there.
No tax breaks were given to ethanol producers to run their tractors, etc on ethanol.
Yet ethanol is subsidized, is it not? That is a tax break. So instead of relying on cheap oil to run their tractors, why not run them on tax-subsidized ethanol? Do you know why they don't? Because the ethanol industry in the U.S. is completely dependent on cheap fossil fuels (your pipe dreams notwithstanding). Wake up and smell the coffee.
If you have an actual argument to make, now's the time. I am too busy to mess with trolls right now.
Thanks for all your insults and condescension. Time will tell what will occur now, won't it?
You can bet oil companies will do their damndest to smash any alternative. It's part of history, something I don't think you've studied enough of.
Check out Forbidden Fuel by Kovarik and Bernton, which will be rereleased next year. They're not pro or con ethanol particularly but they know history. And history shows what oil companies do.
Kenny Rogers now has to think about his cheating. Hope you're always thinking about well you serve the status quo by working for big oil.
BTW, the numbers Blume and I cited were from the Center for Technology Assessment's report which they updated during the Iraq war. We d on't invent facts out of whole cloth, you know.
What can I say? You had your chance to work on sustainable ethanol and you gave it up for fossil fuel. You say you want to end our dependence on fossil fuel? Then why work for the enemy? (better life for your family, Ik n ow what that's about, really I do) Read some history and you'll see why I call them the enemy.
Stop preening about yourself and sneering at Blume. Look at what he's done and then decide if you think he's a nutjob. (Which clearly you do.)
http://permaculture.com/who/teachers/blume.shtml
Bon voyage. I blog rarely because I have a life and wife and children.... sorry not to address everyone else's responses here.
You should thank your lucky stars that some of us do. What do you think would happen if oil companies suddenly turned off the taps? Sometimes I wish people could see the consequences of what would happen if Big Oil just got fed up with all the hatred pointed their direction and just shut the taps off for a while. I think then people would come to appreciate how much their lives depend on oil production.
Your problem, in all honesty, is that you are seriously delusional. All this oil company vitriol is a bit tiresome, when you are as dependent on oil products as are the rest of us (and as is the ethanol industry).
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/marketquotes/
As you can see Dec corn is up to $3.27 and higher for later months. No doubt due to the USDA crop report of 10.8 billion bushels for 2006. As ethanol production continues to rise so will corn prices, and at some point either gas will have to increase, and NG will have to decrease, or the subsidy will have to increase, or there will be some sorry ethanol investors. It may get up to 5% of gasoline fuel. As gas prices increase so does diesel, and all farm expenses, so in order to maintain corn production, corn prices will continue to rise. If PO is on a plateau and gas prices remain flat, ethanol goes in the dump. Compared to last year corn prices have caused a 40-cent drop in ethanol margin and the lower gas prices will increase the lower margin. What happens next year if the crop is further reduced and corn is $4, and gasoline spot is still under $2? I don't see ethanol production increasing more than another 50% before it becomes a net loser for the producers, and investors.
Unless there is a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol there will be some idle new ethanol plants. I don't see gas prices rising fast enough to keep up with rising corn prices, unless there is a catastrophic political upheaval some where in the oil field. . Checkout the ethanol price, why is it so much higher than gas, with 2/3rds the energy?
You might like to check out what is happening in the ethanol scenario in the state of IOWA. Peers the farmers coops are doing it big time. ADM is the big hitter in Illinois. Here in Ky the plants are being touted a lot. Farmers just love it.
The VCs smell flesh in the water to flense for their carpet bags. Politicos are for it and riding it to election.
So who loses? Who always loses?
IMO the ethanol scenario will , will happen and the chips can fall where they may. Yet the exports IMO will have to cease if serious corn goes to ethanol contracts.
In the end it be all folly as you surmise but the ride will be taken I am afraid.
Whats next then? Well the dieoff of course. The pale rider who is drunk on ethanol comes to set things aright.
Many who eschew religion and tetragrammon will suddenly find themselves on their knees begging , begging for relief and a light at the end of the tunnel. It won't happen for the goats and sheep still have to face the seperation test and then comes ...yep...The Lake Of Fire, you guessed it.
Finally the Whore of Babylon(sound familiar?) will feed from the face of the Serpent(this part is neat) and then ..well a NEW EARTH arises from the ashes of the old. We knew it. Darn it that I won't get to see it. I will be waiting for those graves to open and the dead to come forth. Won't be pretty I don't think.
So..spirituality wins. The righteous survive and why shouldn't they? The evildoers will go to that Lake yonder.
Airdale--Some/Most of the above is serious discourse. Some/Most is not. You all can pick and choose but .....but..choose carefully...Red or Blue. Election comes. Are you Red or Blue. Yank or Reb.Blue or Gray. Righteous or not. God Bombs will fall..S. King was right all along.Thankee sai and happy trails to ye.
P.S. Dipchip: I was duty station NAS Barbers Point, Oahu(and points north and west) for 4 long nice years. Back before the haole roundeyes ruined it for all. Willy Victors were my trade. Radar was my game. AT3,2,1 and out at TI. You?
Yes, Mr. Rapier work for an oil company - but i really can't see how this exclude him from being honest and frank. I've not seen anything of his writings that should imply that his views are somewhat guided by big oil.
I have no idea what gave you an impression that Mr. Rapier is something remotely close to dishonest. He's a productive clear-thinking educator who choose to participate in a forum like TOD.
And to echo his own response; make a post if you believe there is something being under-communicated here.
It feels to me that many of the solutions are starting to follow our line of thinking. Hydrogen bad, corn bad, electricity good,...you, Jeffery, Alan, and the other experts are making a difference.
Illegitimii non Carborundum
Do you have a cell phone?
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/10/24/91855/049/21#21
Rat
Rat
Yes, I do. It's one of the old bag phones and I keep it in my truck for emergencies. I've had it for years. I think I get 10 minutes a month. My wife has a newer one for the same reason.
It's like today: I'm speaking at a pest seminar and if I have a breakdown or something, the sponsors of the seminar have to know I won't be showing up.
Todd
What we need are higher efficiency cells at low cost. But apparently trying to lower the cost is a bad idea. So let's forget cost and just subsidize high-end PV to the hilt, and our worries will be over.
Idiot.
Believe me, you are not the first person to ask that question. :-)
The fact that we now have a culture that equates wealth with knowledge or even worse wisdom is unfortunate or even more accurately detrimental. That Mr. Khosla knew something about IT can't be denied, that he knows anything about energy becomes apparent the more he speaks. Not saying anyone can't learn, but how this society automatically kowtows to wealth at this point is abhorrent.
That's one great problem we face now, despite the myths of an open economy and venture heroes, our economy is fairly closed. Our entrenched industrial infrastructure has amazing inertia, "markets" follow it, and democracy is broken. Thinking wealth, which is by nature conservative is going to come up with answers and the will is almost, but not quite as ridiculous as thinking the oil companies will develop a new energy system.
I guess my question to that is, does a solar cell exist with those attributes?
If we have high efficiency and cheap cells, then we got the best of both worlds. But if its an either or sort of thing, then we have a debate centered on economical verus efficient.
I don't have enough information to weigh in just yet, but I certainly have questions about what is feasible both in economic and engineering terms about Solar. I've been doing more reading about this subject, but I'm a neophyte at best in my knowledge of this area. That said I'm eager to learn and have been eating up every piece of info I can find on the subject of solar, and wind for that matter.
The two big techs are Copper Indium Gallium Selenide Thin Film (CIGS FT), a much less energy-intensive thin film process being developed by dozens of companies, and multijunction solar concentrators, based on high-efficiency, extremely high cost Boeing-Spectralab cells developed for satellies, which are heatsunk in small portions and have solar concentrators (either fresnels or mirrors) to narrow down the amount of material needed. The cells are Boeing-Spectralab, the arrangements are being developed by dozens of smaller companies - the key in cost reduction is that you need a fraction of a percent of the silicon material, and the rest of the cost is a fresnel or mirrors.
The latter is what Australia is spending cash on. Good for a proof of concept + wider awareness, as the Nanosolar CIGS FT plant will be online in a year or two.
Most people acknowledge that conventional silicon solar is hideously expensive, and building capacity on that model isn't feasable.
--------
As far as efficiency - here in the US we could easily run our grid on 1% efficient modules that cost a dime a watt, as opposed to the current 10% efficient modules that cost $4/watt. Land is not the issue with solar, we have plenty of desert, parking lot, roof, etc. It's pretty much solely a cost and (to a much smaller degree) a storage thing.