I want to thank the authors of the GreenEnergyBlog for providing the extremely valuable service of mythbusting in the renewables industry. Like many of us, I come across many outrageous claims each week, tantamount to perpetual motion machines and other obvious violations of the basic laws of physics. I routinely speak or write to the “inventors,” only to find — surprise! — they need investor funding to get their idea to the point of a working model. Sorry, no such funding will be coming from me.
We here in the US rank 13th of the top 15 oil-producing nations, with only 2% of the reserves– yet we use 25% of world oil production with only about 5% of the world’s population. While we in America use 20 million barrels of oil a day, and would exhaust our domestic reserve in less than three years without foreign supplies, Iraq possesses the second largest oil reserve in the world. If this huge Iraqi reserve were combined with the nearly equal reserve in its pre-WWI province now known as Kuwait, it would rival even the Saudi reserve – the largest in the world. In terms of oil strength, these three Arab states are followed by the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Venezuela, the former Yugoslavia, Russia, Libya and Mexico.
Note this group is a veritable Who’s Who of 20th (and 21st) century US “foreign intervention.” Way back in the 1920’s, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the USA, Britain and France carved the Middle East into manageable bits, drawing each new border to divide local cultures and deliberately enclose a new mix of rival ethnic elements. The UK and US then established Israel as a refuge for the persecuted Jewish people, and as a bastion of western influence in the region. From the 1930’s through the 1960’s, US oil and automobile companies spent great sums of money lobbying state and federal governments to fund a national transportation system based on the exclusive use of their products.
From beginning of the 2000 election cycle to 2006 alone, the major oil corporations supplied $52 million in campaign contributions. Of this cash pile, 80% was given to Republican campaigns. Following the widely criticized “Energy Task Force” strategy meetings that Mr. Cheney held with oil company executives, the “public servants” in the Bush Administration refused to release the content of those discussions, citing “executive privilege.” These oil corporations pocketed an unprecedented 79% upsurge in profits since Mr. Bush took office in 2000. The biggest five alone have netted a record total of $254 billion in profits. One oily CEO got a $97 million pension, over and above his inflated pay and bonus plan.
We now export $700 billion a year in direct cash payments for foreign oil alone. Yet the 2005 Bush “Energy Plan” gives over $6 billion in “corporate welfare” to these wealthy major oil companies, allegedly to help them increase their oil refining capacity. However, these companies have recently confessed (after willfully closing a significant portion of their existing refineries over the previous ten years) that no amount of tax breaks and subsidies will induce them to build more refineries. While they closed plants that met environmental regulations, they now blame these same regulations for their lack of refining capacity. Internal memos have recently surfaced illustrating a premeditated tactic to deliberately reduce supply in order to seize a greater share of the average American’s disposable income.
Astonishingly, the chief executives of the five largest US oil giants would not submit to testimony under oath at a recent congressional hearing (a motion by Senator Cantwell to place them under oath was roundly seconded, but the Republican chairman then defiantly squelched this motion). Much of their ‘testimony’ was later described as false and misleading. Of course, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have long histories with the oil industry. Mr. Bush’s oil ties are well documented – as are his family’s decades-long ties to the Saudi royals. Enron’s Ken Lay was a top Bush campaign contributor. Mr. Cheney still receives “deferred compensation” from the oil services company he headed, a subsidiary of which, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), received vast un-bid contracts for base construction and supply in Iraq.
Keep in mind that oil doesn’t merely fuel our cars and SUVs – beyond its crucial role in food production from sowing and reaping to fertilizers and pesticides, manufacturing and distribution, and medicines, think of all those many things made of plastic in your house, car and business… and nobody is making any more oil.
Sadly, recent surveys have shown that many auto consumers place Global Warming near the bottom of their concerns.
Yes, this appears to be true. I have to guess that this is caused by a combination of three factors:
1) The oil companies actually have been effective at casting doubt over the whole theory of Global Warming. Over time, I believe this will come to be regarded as one of the single most despicable acts ever perpetrated on Earth’s population, rivaling the tobacco companies’ lies about the health risks of smoking.
2) People resist change in any form at any time, and are not anxious to give up their habit of pumping gas into their cars.
3) Especially when they’re financial endangered, people are not likely to bear an expense that does not immediately and directly benefit themselves and only themselves.
So yes, I agree that rising gas prices will be the driver for the consumer demand part of the equation in EV migration. And fortunately, that’s right around the corner.
If you don’t mind, we could use your help. Please click the link if you’re willing to take part in a short (eight-question) survey. Click Here to take survey Thank you.
It is obvious that the purpose of these articles is to develop interest in investing. So, let’s hear about the investment.
You’re astute, Ed. As implied in the mission statement on the homepage, one of the key values that 2GreenEnergy proposes to bring to its readers is the “interpersonal connections” required for success in the renewables business. To that end, you’ll notice a new tab on the site: Investors. When the functionality is complete in the next day or so, this will become a place at which investors and opportunities can meet. I.e., those with solid business plans can present their offers to a database of serious investors: angels, VCs, hedge fund managers, etc.
I just got off the phone with a man I think of as “one of the good guys.” Jim Riggins, retired from the Air Force, now volunteers to “spread the gospel” of the National Solar Tour, through his work at its local chapter, the Central Coast Solar Tour.
What is a solar tour, you ask? The National Solar Tour, part of the non-profit American Solar Energy Society (ASES), is the largest grassroots solar event in the nation. In 2008 almost 140,000 attendees visited over 5,000 buildings in 3,000 communities across the country. In each state, homeowners, business owners, and building owners who are using solar energy to generate electric power and heat showcase their building to the public, educating large number of people on exactly what solar energy can do for them. For many people, this is the first step on an investigation and a learning experience that will take them through what Jim calls “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of solar power.
For California’s Central Coast, the solar tour is October 3, from 10 AM – 3 PM.
I asked about the standards in efficiency today, and what Jim sees on the horizon. Polycrystalline and monocrystalline are starting to come into their own at 14% – 18%. Thin film technologies offer only 9% – 10% efficiency, but are accompanied by lower production cost and lighter construction, and are thus relevant for those with roofs that may be oddly shaped or unable to handle heavier weight. Still in the lab, but looking very promising are multichromatic systems that absorb solar energy at various wavelengths, and have achieved efficiencies over 40%. The trade-offs, however, are based on the fact that the materials required (cadmium, germanium, etc.) are a bit exotic – certainly not as common as silicon.
Jim says that the confluence of the a progressive administration, financial incentives that are in place, high energy prices, and consumer awareness create an environment that is most favorable to alternative energy since the OPEC embargoes of the 1970s. R&D is “alive and kicking.” And more fundamentally, solar panels are on the shelf now; they’re as common to roofers as shingles or insulation.
Alternative energy is a true national security issue, Jim believes. So why did the George W. Bush administration – ostensibly so concerned about national security — do essentially nothing in this area? Jim explains his theory, which happens to match mine: it’s business. The folks that controlled the purse strings were the people who profited from drilling oil and mining coal. The current administration puts long-term health and safety issues first.
Yesterday I had the good fortune to reconnect with an industry colleague, Brian Wynne, the president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association in Washington, DC. The EDTA is an organization supported by members consisting largely of electric vehicle manufacturers and supply chain partners in the electric vehicle industry, whose purpose is to promote the adoption of electric transportation. For years, Brian and his small but energetic staff and have worked tirelessly to assemble and disseminate information necessary for law-makers to make decisions that will ultimately result in the migration of our cars and trucks away from fossil fuels.
In my estimation, the EDTA is a vital force in effecting this massive change that will ultimately pay enormous dividends for all of us, both in terms of stemming global climate change and eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I was pleased to speak with Brian again, and I’m happy to publish this transcript of our talk.
Craig Shields: What would you say is the state of the EV industry as you see it, Brian?
Brian Wynne: It’s moving forward very quickly. The consumer has an important vote to cast here, and we’ve started with good incentives that will greatly reduce the price premium associated with EVs over their internal combustion counterparts. Now, of course, we just need the availability of vehicles, and this availability changes every week. In addition to the Nissan Leaf, you probably saw that Buick announced a plug-in for 2011.
CS: Yes, the crossover; I did see that.
BW: The gating issue is, as it has always been, batteries. But the Obama administration’s DoE is addressing this aggressively with its $1.5 billion for battery technology development and its $500 million for other components.
The migration to EVs requires the participation of the utilities, as well, and great progress is being made on that front as well.
CS: Please explain for our readers how the EDTA fits in.
BW: We gather and provide objective, credible information to those who need it. We deal with the level of knowledge that exists at any one slice of time, and then provide trustworthy information to build upon that. It’s not journalistic, in the sense of what you folks do at EVWorld, or 2GreenEnergy. We aggregate information and make it available through a variety of sources.
CS: Could you offer an example or two, so we can better understand this?
BW: Sure. Our information is often disseminated through power utilities, as they have relationships with tens of millions of customers. Another example is trade shows. Next year, our presentations on the subject will be made in conjunction with the Washington Auto Show.
And in addition to our consumer-face, of course, we’re lobbyists, we stand for a certain interest. I would say that our interests are completely consistent with the health and safety of everyone on this planet.
CS: Which I suppose can’t be said about every lobbyist on Capitol Hill.
BW: That’s true, but that doesn’t mean that most lobbyists are bad people; they’re simply representing certain interests.
CS: Where is your attention at this point?
BW: Well, one of our jobs is to make sure that this is all coming along in sync and that the policy decisions are providing incentive for the right thing, for example, that they are performance-based, meaning that the biggest credits go to the vehicles that displace the most gasoline.
CS: When I was in your office last fall, we talked about this being a function of the size of the battery. Is that still the case?
BW: Yes. It’s a good assumption that the more kilowatt-hours of energy storage in a plug-in hybrid’s battery, for instance, the less gas will ultimately be used to keep that car on the road.
CS: I write in my blogs, perhaps a bit cavalierly, that what I see as the four main gating factors: OEM production, battery supply, charging infrastructure, and consumer demand, all need to evolve at approximately the same rate – and that I am optimistic that this is, in fact, happening. What do you think?
BW: I guess I agree with that generally, but I have to say that a lot of this is great deal more complicated than it looks. A good example of what makes this so tough is electric power billing. If I’ve driven to grandma’s and I’m charging at grandmas’s, I want the bill to come to me, not grandma.
This is something that has taken a considerable amount of effort to get right, even when you take a much simpler case, say toll collection. Until recently, the RFID device on my car wouldn’t operate anywhere except on the Dulles Toll Road. Now, finally, I can go all the way up to Maine and down to Virginia Beach, which required the integration of systems across various state bureaucracies. The issue is the same—only worse, the power utilities, because they are all regulated differently. Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is a major player in bringing this all off.
CS: How do you see renewable energy playing a role here?
BW: I believe that renewable energy is the most interesting piece of this whole thing. To be honest, electric transportation is not a major driver to the migration to renewables and to building out a smart grid. But global warming is. Our policy makers are totally focused on avoiding a planetary catastrophe; they will not be backing down on this.
CS: That’s good to know.
BW: And speaking of the smart grid, I see this as becoming the new Internet, in the sense of enabling applications that we couldn’t have dreamed of earlier. Now you’re in a car accident, and you use your I-phone to process the claim in real-time: pictures, insurance policies, drivers licenses, etc. – all enabled by the Internet. The smart grid will have that kind of impact on our lives as well.
CS: Fascinating. Thanks so much, Brian. Great speaking with you again.
As I’ve written, I’m more than gratified at both the quantity and quality of the comments we’re receiving on the Three Brass Tacks. At a certain level, one could review these comments and note that the subject matter is quite varied, covering all aspects of the reports – a bit of praise, a few challenges to the accuracy of certain points, new ideas for renewables, etc.
But I want to call readers’ attention to one central point. Many of these comments assert either:
a) that there are corporate/political pressures that actively work against renewable energy in favor of traditional power sources, or
b) the exact opposite, i.e., that there are no such forces, and that renewable energy will be adopted when it can compete cost-effectively with coal, nuclear, oil, etc.
Well that certainly raises at least one big question, doesn’t it? Which one’s right? As we all remember from our logic classes, they can’t both be. The Law of Non-Contradiction reminds us that if proposition A is true, then proposition Not A cannot be true. E.g., it can’t be both raining and not raining at the same place and time, in the same sense of the word “raining.”
And doesn’t this discussion lie at the very core of the future of renewable energy? Is the RE industry playing on a level playing field, or isn’t it?
Both in the report and in this blog, I’ve clearly taken the stance that the RE industry faces all manner of corrupt influences that make it very difficult for large-scale deployments to be licensed, built, and set into operation. There are numerous posts and articles that provide what I feel is compelling evidence to this effect.
Yet I have the utmost respect for readers like Mark of San Jose, former employee at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose comments echo those of many other very senior people and assert that there are no such pressures in one direction or another.
Rather than belabor the point with more anecdotal evidence to support my theories, let me leave you with this:
Even if there are no overt pressures that work against RE, what’s the problem with asking the oil and coal companies to pay for the true cost of the power they provide? How long do you think we’d be scraping coal out of the earth and burning it in our 600+ coal-fired power plants if the coal industry had to pay even an ultra-conservative estimate of the increase in healthcare costs (respiratory disease) its presence causes, and the cost of the long-term environmental damage that it inflicts on us every minute of every day?
As long as they can pass those costs on to you and me and our descendents, I don’t think we can realistically expect any change. All we’re going to see is clever PR on the subject of “clean coal,” “an oil company being part of the solution” and other oxymorons that are nothing but a slap in the face of anyone really paying attention.
I just got back from a family vacation in Spain, during which I spent a fair amount of time looking for relevant things to tell readers when I returned. I didn’t have to wait long for my first inspiration. My attempt to sleep on the way over was interrupted by dawn breaking. Initially annoyed with myself for stupidly forgetting to lower the shade, I looked out the window and beheld this wonderful sight, a 20 MW solar concentrator near Seville. Another reminder of the progress that is being made in so many places around the world.
I want to call readers’ attention to some of the other blogs on the subject that seem particularly complete and insightful. Here’s one: Green Energy Blog.
