Home › Blog › Page 1689

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

Here’s a good discussion of what I call the “no free lunch” theory of renewable energy: everything we do, whether it’s solar, wind, hydrokinetics, etc., comes with a non-negligible ecological cost.  The issue, obviously, is objectively identifying all costs – ecological, financial, and human (e.g., disease and death stemming from various types of energy generation and consumption), and using these data to make fair-minded decisions about our energy future.

I happen to have read this article the same day I edited the transcript of my interview with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute for my upcoming book, “Renewable Energy – Following the Money.” Jerry and I discussed this subject of costs in some depth, and I have to say that I was amazed at how many different philosophies there are competing with one another.  I admit that I was taken by a few of them, whereas others seem to make no sense at all.  Here’s a quick summary of two of the latter category:

The result of the damage that is currently being done to our planet via the consumption of fossil fuels is very small right now, though we know that it will be extremely painful in 100 years.  Therefore, we should do very little about it now, but be prepared to address it aggressively 100 from now.  (Say what?  Here’s what I told Jerry when I heard that:  Even if you accept the premise, which I don’t, if we know the damage we are doing now is going to have enormous repercussions in 100 years, shouldn’t we be doing something aggressive about it now?  It strikes me that the person who proposed that solution doesn’t understand that preventing a problem of global proportion is far easier than fixing it once it’s wreaking vast devastation.  Either that, or he simply doesn’t care.  It’s the equivalent of an oncologist encouraging someone with stage one skin cancer to continue to sun-bathe, on the basis that the condition isn’t terminal at this point.

Here’s another that starts with the same premise: The damage that is currently being done to our planet via the consumption of fossil fuels is very small right now, though we know that it will be felt in the extreme in 100 years.  But so much can change in the next 100 years that dealing with this subject now requires guesswork.  (Yes, it requires guesswork, but that hardly justifies doing nothing.   Again, and no offense intended, it sounds rather like the guy who propounded this concept really is looking for any idea, regardless of how far-fetched, to rationalize a “business-as-usual” approach to energy.)

On we go.  Do we as a species have what it takes to apply our “big brains” to this problem, and kill it before it kills us?  Or will specious arguments like these keep us all fat, dumb and happy until it’s too late?  We’ll see.

 

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Fossil Fuels

Here’s a good, readable summary of the predicament in which humankind finds itself vis-à-vis energy, and the path we took to get here, from author Thom Hartmann.

He points out that we run our factories, heat and cool our buildings, and transport ourselves and our cargo with the decomposed remains of plants and animals that lived and died millions of years ago, and concludes that “it’s time (America) stepped out of the Carboniferous and Mesozoic Periods, and stepped into the 21st century.”

The problem is that doing so will require achieving a political consensus to make a tough decision.  The American people will have to understand that it’s not acceptable for our country to have a de facto energy policy that is built around extracting the last molecules of hydrocarbons from the Earth’s crust and burning them.  How close are we to that level of agreement?

Let’s just say we’re not exactly knocking on the door. We had a presidential election a few months ago in which a central tenet of both campaigns was an energy strategy built around becoming even more aggressive about the harvesting of coal, oil, and natural gas.  At a certain point, it appeared that the president might lose his re-election bid because he was not sufficiently uncompromising in his support of the fossil fuel industries.

Fortunately, the voices calling this into question are growing louder by the day – at least that’s the way it seems to me.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

About a year ago, I had lunch with the top two people from Forester Media, whose publications include Distributed Energy, and during our conversation I expressed my interest in co-promoting one another’s content.  For my money, anyone who’s concerned with the subject of distributed energy, whether that means distributed generation (DG), energy storage, vehicle-to-grid or whatever, ought to be interested in what we’re doing here at 2GreenEnergy. 

I’ve always felt that DG is the real ace-in-the-hole for renewable energy.  Of course, the power utilities are praying that this doesn’t happen, but I think there is a more-than-likely scenario under which the paradigm of centralized generation, transmission, and distribution evaporates over the coming century.  We’ll see what happens.

I’ll find out Tuesday morning over breakfast if I’m able to strike some sort of win-win deal with the fine people at Forester.  Again, we’ll see. 

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Fossil Fuels

Here’s an article from Smart Planet on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) that brought a few basic ideas into alignment for me.  There may be more scholarly treatments of the subject out there, but the author’s central point is one that I can’t imagine will prove false as this concept is taken forward.  That is, with the acknowledged costs of CCS so outrageously high and the cost of renewable energy falling steadily, it’s hard to conceive of a world in which it makes sense from a financial standpoint to continue to burn coal and attempt to contain the effluent.

If anyone has data to the contrary, please share it.

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Nuclear

Many of us are trying to understand the complex dynamics of energy, including the technology, the economics, and the politics that surround our ever-changing mix of coal, gas, oil, hydro, nuclear, and renewables.  There are so many factors that enter into the equation, both known and unknown, that predicting the future of this industry is arguably more difficult than it’s even been.   

One wild card here is nuclear, and our reaction to things like:

• Carbon emissions and climate change
• Fukushima / public safety
• Reluctance of Wall Street to get behind nuclear with its consistent delays and cost-overruns
• The availability of a new wellspring of loan guarantees from the U.S. federal government

Here is a set of short but compelling articles in the current issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, in which experts talk about the future of nuclear in the U.S., and, in particular, the prospect for a “U.S. nuclear exit.” 

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

A bit of predictable news in the electric vehicle space:

GM will soon offer a 200-mile battery EV, and Coda Automotive is imploding under the weight of its stupidity and arrogance, leaving a few (gullible) suppliers with unpaid debts.

The comments in these articles are great; I especially love the guy who wrote, “It is mind-boggling that you can’t take deceitful strategy, terrible design, incompetent auto industry re-treads and make a great car.”

Btw, I’m not implying that there is no room for start-up EV companies; in fact, as I proved just last week, investors still have an appetite for companies like Vision Motor Cars.  What’s different here, however, is a cool design and a price-point that makes sense, given the nature of the product offering.

 

Tagged with: , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Fossil Fuels

Ed Kerr writes:

How do we assess “cost” to fossil fuels vs “solar” energy?  If the scenario that Malcolm Light posits in a post that he wrote for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group at the Arctic-News.blogspot comes to pass (namely the near term extinction of mankind along with most of the other life on the planet) how much more expensive, then, are fossil fuels compared to clean solar energy? How much shall we say that we paid for a gallon of gasoline? or a KWH of electricity?

Please, I’d like to know the answer…

Ed:  I can’t comment on Mr. Light’s analysis, and I certainly won’t attempt an answer to your rhetorical question.  But you bring up a point that I make regularly here: our refusal to “price in” the external costs of fossil fuels is arguably the single most reckless thing that we’re doing in our modern-day society. 

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Fossil Fuels

Everywhere we turn we see increased pressure to get rid of coal in the U.S.  California has no coal-fired power plants, but 40% of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from the burning of coal in neighboring states.  That, according to this announcement by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, will cease entirely by 2025. 

In my estimation, the rapid eradication of coal that we see here in the U.S. is a function of a sea-change in public sentiment, and that, in turn, is the result of extremely effective campaigns to promote public understanding of the dangers of coal.  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a public awareness campaign more effective than the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal,” and I’m not alone in pointing out the gigantic effect this has had on consumer consciousness in the energy space.

Congratulations to its architects, and to the people who continue to make it happen. 

 

 

 

Tagged with: , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Climate Change

Here’s an article on desertification, in particular, holding the line against the Kubuchi Desert, that contains a message, variations of which I predict you’ll hear a great deal over the coming years:  “The top 6 – 8 inches of top soil is all that stands between us and extinction.”

Is this a rash, “the-sky-is-falling” type of statement?  I’ll let you be the judge.  It is undeniably true that things like reduction in rainfall, mismanagement of agricultural land, and the removal of trees and shrubs for firewood, biomass energy, etc. all conspire to create an ever-widening set of dust bowl conditions on huge swatches of previously fertile land.  In fact, Dr. David Doty, one of the people I most admire for his understanding of science, believes that desertification is the largest single threat resulting from climate change.

In the parlance of the article, may we learn to “preserve and protect.” 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Efficiency

I had an interesting discussion with energy program engineer Pierre Delforge from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) when I was up at the Green Grid conference the other day.  It even started off well, when I asked Pierre if he happened to know one of NRDC’s most senior litigators Johanna Wald (who had graciously given me an interview for my first book, Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies.)

“Everyone knows Johanna,” he replied with a grin.  I suppose I should have suspected that; after almost 40 years of protecting the natural environment against antagonistic forces, it’s understandable that she would have made a few million friends here and there.

Pierre went on to describe the work he does in helping reduce the ecological impact of powering consumer electronics, using both voluntary and mandatory programs.  He gave good examples that explain his activities:

The “Energy Star” designation is earned by the top echelon of consumer products that run on external power.  Perhaps 10% – 20% of the best refrigerators, television sets, personal computers, etc., are granted the right to carry this designation, and consumers who care about energy efficiency – either to reduce their utility bills or to create a healthier  environment —  are at liberty to choose them over “dirtier” products. This happens on the demand side, the”buy” side.

Meanwhile, on the supply or “sell” side, we have mandatory regulations that govern the minimum efficiency that is permitted in a product of a certain size and type, if it is to be sold in the U.S.  For example, a 37″ color television can use no more than a certain number of Watts.

Why would this be necessary?  Take the power supplies on PCs, for example, which are internal on desktops and external on laptops.  I learned to my horror that cheap power supplies can be as little as 60% efficient; 40% of each kilowatt-hour used to run certain PCs never gets into the computer at all; it’s converted to heat, and dissipated.  Over the lifetime of the computer, this will cost its owner $10 – $20 more in electricity charges than a high-efficiency model, not to mention what it costs the environment to have generated and wasted that electricity.  So why does this happen?  High-efficiency power supplies cost their manufacturers a few cents more to build, and those few cents go to their bottom line.

A tragic example, but one perfectly illustrative of the sad fact: we need both a carrot and a stick to get the job done in energy efficiency.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,