The March 2008 edition of Energy Tribune focuses closely on the issues of energy efficiency, alternative fuels and carbons equestration which are the three central pillars of post-Al Gore environmentalism. Here are a few highlights.
Late last year I was fortunate enough to attend a continuing education seminar which featured a speech by Michael Economides, one of the world's foremost petroleum engineers and an expert in the politics of oil. Prof. Economides has worked in the oil industry on several continents, as well as in academia. I was able to meet with him briefly after the seminar and consequentially, it seems, became the recipient of a subscription to the Energy Tribune; a professional magazine that covers a variety of aspects of the energy business, how it affects the world in general, and how politics becomes intertwined with the business that makes a modern economy possible.
The March 2008 edition of Energy Tribune focuses closely on the issues of energy efficiency, alternative fuels and carbon sequestration, which are the three central pillars of post-Al Gore environmentalism. It should not be surprising that this magazine takes a dim view of the current fads regarding energy. After all, the magazine's publishers are closely associated with the petroleum industry; however, one should not discount their positions automatically. There is the possibility that they may be right. The debate about the future of energy must turn on whether or not there are scientifically valid reasons for reexamining the currently popular views regardless of who is promoting those reasons. It is also necessary to avoid jumping to conclusions or decision making based on emotional reaction to the popular cant. That is essential the scientific method. So, without further ado, here are a few highlights that should put us in mind to question exactly what is possible and what is necessary within the reasonably foreseeable future.
Energy efficiency is the subject of short piece by Robert Bryce who reminds us of an economic theory developed in 1865 by William Stanley Jevons, who made an excellent case for efficiency leading to lower prices, leading in turn to increased demand. This subject has recently been revisited by four authors in The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements.
The authors, John M. Polimeni, Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampetro,and Blake Alcott, who studied energy use between 1960 and 2004 have reached the same conclusion as Jevons; that increased efficiency, which occurred during the period studied, helped lead to greater energy use than might otherwise have been the case. Assuming that this conclusion is accurate, one is forced to further conclude that efficiency is not the answer unless there is a significant change in human behavior.
More important, perhaps is the article by Richard Martinabout the realities of Carbon Capture technology. Starting inauspiciously with the demise of the FutureGen "clean coal" power plant in January 2008, it continues with a discussion of exactly why the project was an administrative boondoggle, and then goes on to the technical aspects. These technical aspects appear to have brought about the still births of three other grand plans for clean coal electrical generation. The problem according to Martin is that while storing carbon dioxide is quite feasible, building the equipment and infrastructure to do so is extremely expensive. He cites the history of the Dakota Gas plant near Bismarck, which converts coal to methane, burns it to produce electricity, with the resulting CO2 waste being piped to Canada where it is used to help bring oil to the surface from what would otherwise bean unproductive oil field. This plant, constructed following the Jimmy Carter era energy crunch cost some $2 billion, and filed for bankruptcy the day it opened operations. Considering increased costs, including government regulatory and bureaucratic red tape, the price tag would have to be much greater today. If the Dakota plant was economically unviable when it opened, then it is also unlikely that a similar plant would be more viable today, unless improved technology would make a tremendous difference. In Texas, TXU Power recently scrapped plans for a similar plant because the available technology is not suitable for use with the available coal supplies. It therefore appears that the situation is more complex than originally believed. To top it off, there are also 1) the amount of water needed in clean coal plants, which presents a problem when water shortages are common, 2) the cost of the new pipeline system to handle the exhaust gas, and 3) the incredible amount of exhaust which will be produced world wide from all of the "dirty" plants built before the "clean" technology becomes practical. It might be easier to simply plant more trees.
But there are more problems. So far, major carbon sequestration projects have all centered on continuing use of carbon based fuels; essentially coal and oil. The basic idea is to take coal and oil out of the ground, burn them for energy and put the CO2 back into the ground where they came from. Dr. Xina Xie, a research engineer at the University of Wyoming,who has examined the capability of injecting waste gas into old oil fields,believes that it would be necessary to drill an immense number of new wells each year to make this possible. Dr. Xie's figures suggest that to meet the Kyoto target of 2005 emission levels, approximately 100,800 new injection wells would be needed each year. At present we are drilling approximately 40,000 new wells per year for oil and gas production. Assuming that these wells were used to hold waste CO2 after the oil and gas are removed, we would still be facing a daunting task.
The one article which should probably have more coverage was a one page "conversation" with Tim Searchinger, the lead author of a February 2008 article in Science, which concludes that the use of ethanol and other "biofuels" may not be all it is cracked up to be. The abstract of this article states:
"Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a world wide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings,nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. cornlands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products."
This is in addition to the cost of rising food prices as food stocks are diverted to producing ethanol or other petroleum substitutes, and the fact that ethanol generally costs more energy to produce than it supplies when it is used. See, for example, Mac Johnson's February article found here .
There are other articles in the March edition questioning the "science" used to establish the belief in a global warming crisis, and the climate of fear that surrounds many people who have bought into the idea that the earth is a lot more fragile than other evidence seems to indicate. All are well worth reading, and all provide evidence that we should not over react in any direction until we have all the facts in front of us.
It is very easy to jump to conclusions, panic, and to pour billions into "solutions" that are not viable in the long term. Emotional reactions are not good science. As Roy Spencer points out, if the global warming frenzy turns out to be a false alarm there will be no "collective sigh of relief." Those scientists who promoted it will not admit their mistake. Instead those interests who stood to make money from the alarm will be angered, and the rest of the fear mongers will simply shut up and the earth shaking problem will disappear, to be replaced by something else. Spencer's fear is that by participating in this panic, science in general and climate science specifically may be severely damaged.
Readers interested in those portions of Energy Tribuneavailable on line may find them at http://www.energytribune.com/
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
Mr. Laib:
Thank you for a thoughtful piece. I think there were excellent points made, although my conclusions might differ from yours.
The current energy situation the US finds itself in, should not, but has, unfortunately, been framed as a debate on global warming.
The reality is that the economic and geopolitical consequences of the US increasing dependence on foreign oil is the 1000 pound gorrila in our kid's playroom.
The wealth of this country is being taken from us and divvied up amongst the countries of Putin, Ahmadeenijad, Hugo Chavez, the Saudi Arabian Royal Family, and the Emirates.
Besides throwing us into recession, we are supporting, some of the worst despots in the world who are now flush with American cash.
As just one example of how that has played out diplomatically, is the fact that for the first time in many years there are at least four South American countries now in the Castro camp. All of them supported by Mr. Chavez with oil wealth largely eminating from the US. Iran likewise. And what the soviets were unable to achieve in 70 years of the cold war, they are now getting, wealth.
I agree with your skepticism about various quick fixes from science like sequestration. When president Bush correctly identified the US as having an addiction to oil, his solution reminded me of a typical response from a substance abuser, and, as a physician, I work with many of them.
The simple answer for an alchoholic is to stop drinking. The answer for an oil addict is to decrease fuel consumption. But the answer we were given was that the tooth fairy was coming- fuel cells, hydrogen powered car, photo voltaics- the scientists would save us from our indulgences.
Meanwhile, there are perfectly decent, safe, vehicles, on our roads that can get 60-70 mpg and the technology exists in hand that could get 100 mpg.
Yet, since the 1970s this country has failed to make any progress whatsoever on fuel efficiency standards and now we are paying the piper, not to mention Hugo and Vladimir.
A coalition of auto state UAW Democrats and laissez faire Republicans, have thwarted all efforts to reduce gas consumption. Now we are minimally increasing standards, late and little.
Besides, being a government imperative, I see it as an individual imperative. I watch TV ads that implies that what is important to Americans is the adrenaline rush of going 0 to 60 in 20 seconds, or driving a big Escalade that could carry half a circus.
When I grew up, back in the paleolithic, we were an upper middle class family with four kids, and yet our house was 1600 sq ft. We had one tv, one car, and so did everybody else.
To me there is a spiritual dimension to all this. We pay for our indulgences. If we live wastefully and demand increasingly more and more material goods then we will squander our cpital if not our souls.
Or to put it in a familiar context:
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Comment by yonkel | March 19, 2008
[…] The debate about the future of energy must turn on whether or not there are scientifically valid reasons for reexamining the currently popular views regardless of who is promoting those reasons. It is also necessary to avoid jumping to conclusions or decision making based on emotional reaction to the popular cant. That is essential the scientific method. So, without further ado, here are a few highlights that should put us in mind to question exactly what is possible and what is necessary within the reasonably foreseeable future. Full article. […]
Pingback by Ethanol Business - Ethanol Business And Benefits Of Dynamic Renewable Fuel | March 19, 2008
yonkel, you don't know much about cars. :) A car that takes 20 seconds to get from 0 to 60 mph is going to induce an adrenaline rush in quite a different way than what you meant. It will be from the fear of getting run over by a semi, not the excitement of quick acceleration. You're thinking of 0-60 in about 6 seconds.
And what cars get 70mpg? I mean real cars, being used in real-world scenarios, with the same level of safety, utility, and comfort that e.g. our two minivans currently provide.
I'm not a big fan of Escalades and other vehicles of that ilk myself, but using your own example, how is a family of 6 supposed to get around in a subcompact? Sure, when you were a kid you probably all piled in, but these days you can't have the little kids sitting in the big kids' laps - everyone has to have their own seat, with room for infant carriers, booster seats, etc. And we aren't even talking about luggage yet.
I appreciate the sentiment that we need to be more independent when it comes to our energy sources, but we've pushed the conservation thing into the realm of diminishing returns. We need to increase the supply of energy. A couple hundred new nuclear power plants, and a couple of dozen new oil refineries would do wonders.
Comment by GriffithLea | March 22, 2008
GriffithLea:
Yes, I plead ignorant on the acceleration. I actually was a mechanic at one time, back when cars had points and you could hotwire an ignition with a paper clip.
And I checked out the mpgs and the best like the Prius are getting 48 max, but that is double what other cars of the same size are getting.
Obviously, 6 people will not fit in a subcompact, but even within car classes there are up to 75% difference between the least and most efficient cars. Besides, check out the situation on your way to work. The vast majority of SUVs and large cars have only 1-2 passengers. I have a Van that I use for occasional family outings but my wife and I use the Escort and Hyundai for commuting.
The amount of gas that would be saved by having people switch to the most efficient vehicles for their class, would be enormous and immediate.
My own 99 Escort with a 5 speed gets about 35, but my next Prius will reduce my gas consumption by 32%.
Currently transportation accounts for 28% of all energy use. If the average person drove a car that was 20% more efficient US energy consumption would decline 5.6%. On the contrary we have been increasing consumption at about 2% per year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States
I don't know what you mean by " we've pushed the conservation thing into diminishing returns". My take is that we have totally ignored conservation to the point that we are in trouble and on the verge of recession and possible compromise of the environment. Per capita consumption of energy has been rising. Houses are bigger, cars are bigger, public transportation terrible and if the Chineese and Indians decide to follow our path, heaven help us.
The new energy legislation is the first attempt at improved CAFE standards since the 70s.
I have no problems with more nucleur plants, but it is not an either/or with conservation. The argument that prices are high due to lack of refining capacity ignores the free market. Whether we refine more gas or buy it from refineries in Brazil and Mexico, the determining factor is the cost of oil.
To me being conservative implies caution and prudence not gambling with our children's future for fast cars and huge houses.
Comment by yonkel | March 22, 2008