Energy Projections and Incremental Change

So long as one looks to political solutions, or "Public Policy" approaches based on political solutions, one is very foolish to expect any major change to the energy mix for the foreseeable future.

1. Governments are generally very bad at promoting proactive response to situations. Governments are much better at reactive responses.

2. Free markets are much better at evolving proactive change, but the energy industry is a far cry from being a "free" market.

3. Most in the "alternative energy" industry are, quite frankly, being dishonest about the cost/benefit ratios. Some may find the classification "dishonest" a bit strong for many advocates, but, when these advocates ignore the downside while exaggerating the up side, they are being dishonest, whether intentionally or otherwise.

4. Most analyses of the energy situation ignore history, to wit:

-The petroleum and electrical generation industries are on the order of 150 years old. It wasn't until some time in the early 1950's that petroleum products displaced coal as the "Energy King". As early as the 13th century in England, the pollution resulting from coal burning was recognized as a sufficient problem to warrant a royal ban on burning coal in London...

-Commercial generation of electricity by means of nuclear energy is only about 50 years old.

-Homo sapiens has relied on solar energy as the primary source of energy since they were first identifiable as a separate species, and most of their ancestors relied primarily on solar energy as well. If solar energy was adequate for meeting human needs, there would be no need to seek alternatives. If one diverts solar energy from current applications, like growing food, one creates more problems than one solves.

-Humans have been tapping the wind to meet energy needs for at least 4000 years. If this were a viable solution, it is unlikely that we would be looking at alternatives to wind...

5. The whole question over energy consumption is going to become moot in the near future (possibly by the magical date of 2035) due to the lack of sufficient potable water to maintain current population trends. The energy issues are diverting attention and resources away from a far more critical crisis looming on the horizon.

"3. Most in the "alternative energy" industry are, quite frankly, being dishonest about the cost/benefit ratios. Some may find the classification "dishonest" a bit strong for many advocates, but, when these advocates ignore the downside while exaggerating the up side, they are being dishonest, whether intentionally or otherwise."

The most important parts of this assertion are the words "dishonest and ignore", which is what the current global energy infrastructure has been doing about the true costs of fuel for for 100 years.

Many alternative energy schemes are downright cheap when you factor in the environmental and geopolitical costs of petroleum and coal. If you place little value on those costs, you will never accept the argument that change is viable and worthwhile. It's going to take many (100's) of technologies and breakthrough's to get there, and we can debate those all day. But the question remains, is the commitment to find alternatives there, and the answer in the USA and most of the world is clearly no.

Personal opinion only - maybe you would prefer a world with no people on it?

I'm not following you. Do you mean would "I prefer a healthy world with people on it?" the answer is yes.

I see you chose to disregard the question about assigning cost to existing the fuel production economy. That is what has to happen. Until it does, we will keep seeing comments like these,

"Also, what are ways in which a competitive free market can promote and eventually introduce these new technologies in a way that is not against the fossil fuel industry?"

Do you see any way that we can find alternative solutions to the problems caused by combustion of sequestered carbon based fuels without negatively affecting fossil fuels? Seems very unlikely to me.

Fossil fuel consumption is only going to increase over the next 25 years at a minimum - impossible otherwise as there is no replacement.

For those that shed tears over this fact it is necessary to 'cook the books' and add on different adjustments to the costs and values of existing energy sources until their favored technology can compete.

The next step normally is for greennuisnace, al gore and all to rant and rave about how horrible the future will be. We will see how bad as nothing is really going to change. The great green Europe talks very much more than does and green types praise them for the chatter.

In general, PR and chatter are very much more important to the green world than reality.

cooking the books

"cooking the books" : to create the appearance of earnings that really didn't exist. A company is guilty of cooking the books when it knowingly includes incorrect information on its financial statements -- manipulating expenses and earnings to improve their earnings per share of stock (EPS).

It seems that this financial exercise of accounting is offensive to you. The current production of carbon based fuel excludes major cost items, namely environmental and remediation, to make it appear that it is a sound enterprise. You are equating this with the fact that we need energy to keep the civilization growing. No one is arguing with you that I have seen. I'm not. But you are accusing the alternative energy industry of cooking the books, when in reality it is a fledgling business trying to expose the true costs of carbon based fuel, so that the playing field is level.

I am accusing the greens almost in total and some of the RE industry of being exceedingly economical with facts, figures and the truth unless there is some small chance it will help their position.

in reality it is a fledgling business trying to expose the true costs of carbon based fuel, so that the playing field is level

That statement is blatant green BS. It is simply lying - the green nazis doing whatever they have to in order to further their position.

Fledgling? Solar PV has been with us over 50 years and wind ha been used forever - Fledgling? Same for ethanol for that matter though it is even farther in the till.

Again, no comment on an analysis of energy costs. Shall we call it a day, or do you want to keep asking how my argument is relevant, and reply that it would be impossible for me to have a relevant argument, because you think I belong to a Nazi group. It's a serious problem that we have (I hope you would agree), and the solutions will be complex. My position on energy is that we should develop production facilities that are superior to liquid petroleum and coal combustion, because they are very expensive (economically, socially and environmentally), and are a primary source of conflict. Do we agree on this premise?

"My position on energy is that we should develop production facilities that are superior to liquid petroleum and coal combustion, because they are very expensive (economically, socially and environmentally)..."

Both sides of the argument are being dishonest regarding the total costs. The fact is, the petroleum industry would not have displaced coal as the primary energy source back in the 1950's had there not been strong economic incentives for this. The development of the oil industry into a major economic force originated with the development by Vladimir Shukhof in Russia of a cheap method for refining petroleum into viable energy source in 1891. The first of the mega-oil corporations (StandarD Oil of Ohio, built on Rockerfeller money) did not exist before 1870- and was broken up in 1911 by the US government. Were there not viable social and economic incentives, it is highly unlikely that such phenomenal growth would have been realized. While 100 years ago, the full impact of a reliance on oil would not have been fully appreciated, the industry would not have developed had there not been real incentives.

The solar industry plays down some significant cost factors. First of all, it takes about 20 hectares (apparent world-wide average- results will vary depending on geographic location) of land dedicated to nothing but energy production to produce 1 megawatt of electrical energy. In the Southwestern US (specifically, Southern California in the Mojave north of San Bernardino), the producers tend to downplay or ignore the fact that a great deal of water is required for operation and maintenance, in a region of the country where agricultural interests are already losing the water wars to urban interests.

The solar energy industry, by focusing attention on the "efficiency" of the panels, hides the cost of storage (including the environmental impact of all these batteries that have to be recycled eventually).

The wind energy industry ignores the fact that it takes 50 hectares of land to generate 1 megawatt of energy. Compare this to 5 hectares per megawatt for conventional mega-hydro facilities (again, results will vary depending on geography).

The biggest consumer of petroleum products, by far, is the transportation sector. Electric automobiles have a long way to go before they can even come close to displacing petroleum products in this sector. Look at the history of the transportation industry- beginning with solar (i.e., food for people to food for animals) to wind to coal to petroleum products to nuclear power (the first reactor brought on line, in the 1950's, was to power a navy vessel, not to generate electricity). We would still be using solar or wind, if they could meet demand.

If you really want to displace petroleum with alternatives, you should focus on the transportation industry, not the fixed power generation industry.

A good, unbiased analysis of the realities of alternative energy can be found in David MacKay's book, "Sustainable Energy- without the hot air" available on line here.

So, who is "cooking the books"? Anyone with an agenda to promote...

100% agreed that new fuels/energy sources are needed.

We would disagree on the 'expensive' part most likely - at least on how costs are broken down.

The greenpeace, what I refer to as 'true green' or green nazis position is all too often no more than a knee jerk reaction with little to back it up. Same with the other extreme for that matter.

EWG (environmental working group) is another case in point - their science generally has little to do with real science - shown all to well. In saying what crops are good or bad they simply add up the kgs of chemical used per acre with no concern over how lethal the chemicals are - leading to false conclusions. In general the newer pesticides are less dangerous than the 'approved' organic pesticides but they have zero interest in such things - I guess it complicates life for them.

In short, I have zero sympathy for 'feel good green' positions.

Taking better care of the planet is very necessary - too many people and too much industry to continue business as usual.

There was a statement in an earlier post about waging war "against the fossil fuel industry". That is quite different from seeking to research alternative sources of energy and consumption. When there are viable alternatives that are discovered and put into practice that is different. A case in point; there are no buggy whip factories anymore. They went away when alternative modes of transportation went away. When we have power/fuel alternatives to oil, that industry will go the way of the buggy whips too.

Recognizing the scope of that industry and our use of oil products, it will be a long time before we transition to new alternatives and away from oil based products and energy.

"Do you see any way that we can find alternative solutions to the problems caused by combustion of sequestered carbon based fuels"

The assumption is being made that we are causing all kinds of problems. What problems are caused by the combustion of oil that has inordinately affected our presence in this Universe and this planet in particular? The assumption is being made that the use of this source of energy is detrimental to mankinds existence on Earth. It isn't. There is pollution being generated but we here in the States have gone to great lengths to clean up from the past where we weren't handling things as responsibly. We are doing more with scrubbers, etc. to limit what we exhaust into the atmosphere, etc. We aren't causing climate change or making weather patterns change. Mankind isn't that significant.

100 years from now, people will wonder why we were so blind about our impact on global ecosystems, both climatically and environmentally. 50 years ago, thousands of people mined and worked with asbestos. 100 years ago, people got x-Rays at the county fair, 150 years ago, owning slaves was legal in parts of the USA. My point is that we have reached a saturation point for human impact, and mankind is in fact that significant. The fact that many don't perceive or believe it is not that remarkable. Safe drinking water, safe food and abundant diverse ecosystems are in danger in much of the world. Climate change is a symptom.

And just so you don't think I'm so smug that I think I know everything, For the last ten years I've been railing against touch screens as an impediment to information access, inferior to either voice or keyboard. It's not looking good for my hypothesis.

"...touch screens as an impediment to information access, inferior to either voice or keyboard."

I am curious to know more about the impediment.

GA

You don't give yourself much credit. I have hundreds of clues.

Plenty of clues and 99% of them wrong?

Or one can just listen to al gore - the 'expert' on the matter.

many will be wrong, that's why they are still clues. Here are some facts to get you started.

http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/lakessurvey_index.cfm

What are the causes of this? There are hundreds of reasons. Does the fact that I don't know them all invalidate the data? This is a clue that even in the U.S., we are in trouble.

The sky is falling - the sky is falling!

only 56% of the 8000 lakes and reservoirs tested in this study in the US are rated good, per this analysis of over 40 biological and chemical toxins. The other 44% are either fair or poor. I don't think the sky is falling. I'm just suggesting you open your eyes.

Open your own eyes - these problems have been around for long and are being worked through.

Not fast enough for the green loonies but what to do.

Do we need to take better care of the earth? Yes.

Do we need to panic and go on 1000 different emergency programs and subsidize to fantastic amounts things like solar PV? No.

This is like the fools protesting on Wall street - is theirs the solution that will do any good? No!

What are the standards that are being used and who established them?

Since those standards are probably set by the EPA, and we all know how reasonable this bunch is (they have to justify their existence and expand their feifdom), it is no wonder that such a high percentage of lakes, etc. don't measure up. I would bet their standards are not reasonable. That isn't to say we don't have any standards at all, let's just make sure they are workable. We as mankind aren't so fragile that we need to be protected from every little thing that isn't pristine. Our bodies were designed to handle much that is thrown at it. Our immune system and other protective organs are much more capable than we think. It's the way we were made. And the arguement has been made that as we are more protected the more vulnerable our bodies become.

Here at work I could also set standards so high that none of my direct-reports would have a satisfactory rating too, eventhough with reasonable expectations (which tend to be high by me) their performance is very acceptable.

I haven't said we don't have impact.

I'm just saying they aren't earth-shattering or monumental, for the most part. Even when there have been dramatic accidents like the Exxon Valdez and the latest spill in the Gulf, nature comes back, because that's the way it was designed. Nature has great capability to recover from man-made and natural disasters in ways that we really don't understand yet and probably never will.

PFR: You're right in that there is water and air pollution and other concerns that needs to be addressed. We are and should continue working on those, with proven or at least highly substantiated methods. Not corn ball ideas like cow flatulence and vehicle exhaust is causing the ice caps to melt.

Interesting how those projections show a sharp downward trend, leveling off soon. I think it is a case of garbage data in, garbage data out. Yes, we should be working on alternatives as if we were waging World War II against the fossil fuel industry, because of global warming and general pollution from the new extraction methods.

Thanks for your input everyone.

Let me pose some other questions brought to my mind from this discussion:

In your opinion, are there benefits to marketing and utilizing developing, inferior technologies such as wind and solar? Does market exposure affect R&D efforts for these technologies?

Also, what are ways in which a competitive free market can promote and eventually introduce these new technologies in a way that is not against the fossil fuel industry?

All RE sources have progressed by leaps and bounds - the only problem being that there are still a few more hurdles to get over - two primary hurdles being cost and storage.

R&D work has been going on for the past 50 plus years for most of the RE technologies and has helped. It is continuing as well it should. Uncle Sam has invested heavily over the years and so a few don't turn out as expected when programs were started.

For example - the hydrogen economy - great once someone can commercialize a cost effective manner to generate hydrogen. Ethanol has not turned out the way predicted. To date methanol production from renewable sources is practically nil.

When developing a technology often the only way you learn something is a bad idea is by trying.

RE being against the fossil fuel industry? No - if and when a RE technology is ready for prime time it will soar on it's own.

In my opinion, for certain applications solar and wind are superior solutions to grid supply. I am thinking, for instance, of using wind for remote water pumping (as used to be prevalent in the western states when I was younger, for maintaining water levels in stock tanks, etc.) where intermittency is not an issue and running a grid feed can be prohibitively expensive (i.e., due to rights-of-way issues and the cost of copper). Solar works very well (with batteries) for, say, remote communications facilities (radio relay stations, for example), again where grid connection is prohibitively expensive, and where a diesel generator presents problems with maintenance and fuel supply.

Thanks to the TVA Rural Electrification Project of Franklin Roosevelt's days, there aren't very many regions left in the US where grid connection is not available. However, in other parts of the world, this can be a major factor. Current economic factors suggest that, for much of the world, local power generation may be more appropriate than centralized, distributed power.

In short, don't try to duplicate the business model of the big boys with inappropriate technology. Find niche markets where you have a significant advantage. Ignore government subsidy programs- go for projects where the local populace is willing and able to pay for their own access to power.

GA

"There has to be enough tentative viability for corporations or individuals alike to invest their time, effort and money to see if they are workable."

Very true. This raises another question (or series of questions) about the timeframe of development, the stemming topic of this blog post. In a true free market would these technologies have gotten their feet off the ground in an acceptable amount of time? Certainly by now there has been enough advance for corporations and individuals to think some of these technologies are workable and worth investing in, given the solution to a few hurdles as mentioned above. But it is hard to argue that much of this progress has been due to government investment in this sector. Would the free market time-line have been an acceptable one for the needed progress in this area? Is the displacement of fossil fuel for energy needs something we can afford to wait a long time for?

The hurdle I see is that the market is driven by incentive and gain. What gives an undeveloped (nonprofitable) technology the means to effectively reach a point of competition with something as convenient as petroleum? Perhaps part of the solution is the correct allocation of attention and funding (more R&D efforts and less market subsidies and production).

The government has invested in the development of many new tech items in the government labs as well as with grants - this is good.

What is not so great is the government picking winners - they usually make a real mess of it. Subsidies for wind, solar PV, ethanol, methanol to start are totally out of proportion to the benefit derived.

This is not at all new - these programs have been in pşace for decades.

"Would the free market time-line have been an acceptable one for the needed progress in this area? Is the displacement of fossil fuel for energy needs something we can afford to wait a long time for?"

I have seen statistics lately that showed we have oil reserves that would take care of our needs to another several decades and still not deplete those reserves, and so what if we do. It is there to be used.

In the meantime, we keep doing the research with wind, solar and other technologies we haven't even thought of yet. We aren't just "waiting". That would imply that nothing is being done. We are moving forward. There is no quick fix no matter how much money is dumped into the mix. More money doesn't necessarily mean results (look at our Welfare and Educational systems) that benefit us.

This still needs to be a private enterprise venture. If the government wants to get involved, let it do so by helping businesses operate without cumbersome regulation or possibly tax incentives for doing the work. The government should not put in cash! The government is not a good business partner. It doesn't do anything but waste other peoples money. This is where the term "easy come, easy go" applies. If it isn't your money you aren't as frugal.

A major problem with Government involvement in alternative technologies is that politicians haven't a clear picture of the market. By far the largest use of petroleum products is for transportation, not grid energy generation. Focusing on grid energy is looking at the wrong problem.

With respect to electric autos, consider that for the first decade of the 20th century, electric automobiles were far more numerous that gasoline-powered automobiles. In fact, electric automobiles date from very soon after Volta developed his battery, some time in the 1820's.

If you want to replace petroleum products in the automotive industry, you must ask:

1. Why did the market favor gasoline-powered vehicles over electric 100 years ago?

2. What has changed since then to improve the competitiveness of electric automobiles over gasoline-fueled automobiles?

I believe, although there may be other reasons, the primary limitation of the electric automobile 100 years ago was range, at least in the US. I do not believe current technology has really done anything to fix that problem.

When the government figures out a way to put a meter on the sun, the world will "shift its focus".