I often hear that installing wind and solar power doesn't help with our oil import problems, because we don't use oil for electrical generation anymore. I think that's not thinking far enough "outside the box".
So, do renewables help with our problems with oil?
Yes, solar power should be an important part of our transportation solution portfolio.
Transportation needs to be electrified, and all forms of existing transportation have power-hungry electrical systems, which draw power from the engines. PV can provide electricity more cheaply than can gasoline/diesel engines functioning as generators1.
We could reduce transportation fuel consumption by aggressively deploying PV on planes, trains, ships and automobiles. Let's discuss the hardest case, flying.
1st, Manned non-commercial planes that run on PV2 exist right now, and PV can certainly provide "hotel" electrical consumption (lighting, instruments, etc) on commercial aircraft. Planes travel above the clouds, and mostly during the day, which raises the "capacity factor" - the % of time the PV would generate power. The surface area of a plane could be maximized with trailing surfaces and longer wingspans. Taking the surface area of a large existing plane, one might generate 5% of overall energy needs using 20% efficient current commercial technology.
PV efficiency is likely to rise to something close to it's theoretical 66%, tripling the % that it can provide, while energy requirements are likely to fall: In the long term, design changes can reduce fuel consumption by 70%: "CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — In what could set the stage for a fundamental shift in commercial aviation, an MIT-led team has designed a green airplane that is estimated to use 70 percent less fuel than current planes while also reducing noise and emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx). source
The combination of 3.3x the PV output and 1/3 the energy requirement brings the PV % up to perhaps 50% of energy needs.
Finally, the remainder of the power could come from fuel (SOFC, hydrogen, etc) cells, which make much more sense for aviation than for personal transportation because infrastructure requirements are much easier to deal with (there are a relatively small number of airports). It's perfectly possible aviation will go to fully electric drivetrains.
Lets look at shipping, starting with the Emma Mærsk . With a length of 397 metres, and beam of 56 metres, it has a surface area of 22,400 sq m. At 20% efficiency we get about 4.5MW on the ship's deck at peak power. Now, as best I can tell it probably uses about 10MW at 12 knots (very roughly a minimum speed), 20MW at 15 knots, and 65MW (80% of engine rated power) at 25.5 knots (roughly a maximum). So, at minimum speed it could get about 45% of it's power for something close to 20% of the time, for a net of 9%. Now, if we want to increase that we'll need either higher efficiency PV, or more surface area from outriggers or something towed, perhaps using flexible PV. You could add a roof, or you could incentivize 10% of the containers to be roofed with PV - they could power ships, inter-modal rail, inter-modal trucks...
Here' a fun example of a boat that's 100% PV powered, and here's another.
Rail would be relatively easy, as most trains are driven by electric motors. A straightforward solution would be to build PV into the roofs of shipping containers, which could be plugged into ports on both trains and container ships.
1 $3 gasoline in a car translates to $.30/kWh (there are about 35kWh in a gallon, of which the most efficient generators can extract about 10), which PV can beat handily. $2 diesel or jet fuel translates to $.10/kWh (there are about 40kWh in a gallon, of which the most efficient diesel engines can extract about 20). That would require PV that cost $2 per peak watt, which the best existing PV modules can provide. Balance of System costs (structures, wiring, inverters, installation) would be greatly reduced by building panels into rolling stock as part of the manufacturing process. Inverters wouldn't be needed, as power would feed directly into vehicle electrical systems.
We can expect diesel to rise in price, while PV will continue to fall.
2 This may look very far from a practical solution, with it's small single-person manned capacity and it's very wide wingspan, but these guys are trying something very hard: continous powered flight during the night. They're trying to solve a problem that's much harder than commercial daytime aviation from Chicago to New York.
June 23, 2010
June 13, 2010
How quickly will we move to electric vehicles?
As you probably know, I think we should find replacements for oil ASAP. In particular, we should move to electric vehicles. Lately we've seen solid progress towards EVs, in the form of the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. OTOH, GM plans to ramp up the Volt slowly to not get ahead of demand, and other car manufacturers are moving more slowly.
So - why aren't we moving more quickly to EVs?
I think there are a few things going on:
Oil's price has been higher than the price for substitute fuels for most of the last 40 years, but the margin has varied enormously, and it has only been clearly very high just in the last several years;
Industrial/commercial users are more price sensitive than residential/personal users;
Substitution takes a while ("capex lag");
Transportation is harder to replace than stationary uses, due to the secondary cost of energy storage (mostly in the form of batteries);
EVs are competitive with $80 oil, and far cheaper when you include external costs (security, "conventional" pollution, CO2, etc, etc) , but external costs are only internalized for a small minority of consumers, who are willing to recognize and factor in those costs even without subsidies, credits, fuel/carbon taxes, etc. External costs are extremely important: If those things weren't a problem, we wouldn't be worrying about HEV/PHEV/EREV/EVs. Heck, web sites like The Oil Drum etc wouldn't exist;
OPEC knows they face dangers from substitutes, and will keep prices in their current range as long as they possibly can. Effective fuel prices will stay moderate unless there is another price breakout, or governments rustle up the courage to internalize costs; and
A substitute needs to be much better than the status quo (rather than just competitive) to replace it quickly;
So.....the transition to EV/PHEV/EREVs will be kind've slow for a while.
Won't another wave of high gas prices cause a recession, that will prevent people from buying EVs?
EREVs are here now. Suggesting that high gas prices will cause recession, and that no one will notice and do anything about it, seems highly unrealistic to me. You may object that's already happened, and I'd reply that's only partially true. OTOH, the part that is true is why we're seeing a CAFE that's rising sharply; the Volt and Leaf vehicles; and an EV credit of $7,500.
If we were to see another oil price shock, I think we could expect to see the transition from ICE to EV accelerate very considerably.
Keep in mind that one of the major causes of oil-shock induced recessions is consumer uncertainty, as they delay their purchase, and wait to decide whether to buy something with better mileage. Well, I think another oil shock will push people off the fence: they'll start buying EREVs and EVs, and they'll have a much better reason to replace their old vehicles than they've had for a very long time.
So - why aren't we moving more quickly to EVs?
I think there are a few things going on:
Oil's price has been higher than the price for substitute fuels for most of the last 40 years, but the margin has varied enormously, and it has only been clearly very high just in the last several years;
Industrial/commercial users are more price sensitive than residential/personal users;
Substitution takes a while ("capex lag");
Transportation is harder to replace than stationary uses, due to the secondary cost of energy storage (mostly in the form of batteries);
EVs are competitive with $80 oil, and far cheaper when you include external costs (security, "conventional" pollution, CO2, etc, etc) , but external costs are only internalized for a small minority of consumers, who are willing to recognize and factor in those costs even without subsidies, credits, fuel/carbon taxes, etc. External costs are extremely important: If those things weren't a problem, we wouldn't be worrying about HEV/PHEV/EREV/EVs. Heck, web sites like The Oil Drum etc wouldn't exist;
OPEC knows they face dangers from substitutes, and will keep prices in their current range as long as they possibly can. Effective fuel prices will stay moderate unless there is another price breakout, or governments rustle up the courage to internalize costs; and
A substitute needs to be much better than the status quo (rather than just competitive) to replace it quickly;
So.....the transition to EV/PHEV/EREVs will be kind've slow for a while.
Won't another wave of high gas prices cause a recession, that will prevent people from buying EVs?
EREVs are here now. Suggesting that high gas prices will cause recession, and that no one will notice and do anything about it, seems highly unrealistic to me. You may object that's already happened, and I'd reply that's only partially true. OTOH, the part that is true is why we're seeing a CAFE that's rising sharply; the Volt and Leaf vehicles; and an EV credit of $7,500.
If we were to see another oil price shock, I think we could expect to see the transition from ICE to EV accelerate very considerably.
Keep in mind that one of the major causes of oil-shock induced recessions is consumer uncertainty, as they delay their purchase, and wait to decide whether to buy something with better mileage. Well, I think another oil shock will push people off the fence: they'll start buying EREVs and EVs, and they'll have a much better reason to replace their old vehicles than they've had for a very long time.
April 27, 2010
Will energy alternatives be too expensive? Feasibility vs Competitiveness:
Chemical companies like Dupont still use oil as chemical feedstock to make plastics, glues, etc because it is still cheaper than alternatives. Won't alternatives raise prices and therefore lower living standards?
Yes, but not much. There is a basic paradigm that's useful here: "feasibility" vs "competitiveness". In most industries a very small cost difference can make you uncompetitive. That means that slightly higher cost solutions will be avoided, which can give the impression that those solutions are higher cost than they are. On the other hand, if changes in the business environment (or natural environment!) change the costs of alternatives for everyone, suddenly alternatives can become acceptable in that industry.
So, for instance, recycled materials are in general slightly more expensive than virgin materials, plastic included. But, if oil becomes more expensive then recycled materials may suddenly become the standard. If something can be recycled with only 10% loss at each generation, that can reduce the consumption of virgin materials by 90%, with only a very small additional cost for the industry.
Similarly, electric vehicles cost more than internal combustion engines fueled by dirt cheap gasoline. But, they don't cost any more than ICEs when gasoline reaches $3 per gallon, a level we only reached relatively recently.
Another example: Observers of the coal indutry sometimes think that "The cheapest and best coal is gone." But the US has a lot of Illinois Basin coal, and it's both high quality, and from a larger perspective only slightly more expensive to handle due to it's sulfur content. In a competitive environment, it's winner takes all, and only slightly more costly sellers lose out completely.
So, we have to "think outside the box", and consider that we could have whole industries that eliminate oil entirely, at a cost which is surprisingly affordable.
Why didn't we do that a long time ago, then?
Because, change is painful, and we don't do it if we don't have to, as I talked about in my last post.
Yes, but not much. There is a basic paradigm that's useful here: "feasibility" vs "competitiveness". In most industries a very small cost difference can make you uncompetitive. That means that slightly higher cost solutions will be avoided, which can give the impression that those solutions are higher cost than they are. On the other hand, if changes in the business environment (or natural environment!) change the costs of alternatives for everyone, suddenly alternatives can become acceptable in that industry.
So, for instance, recycled materials are in general slightly more expensive than virgin materials, plastic included. But, if oil becomes more expensive then recycled materials may suddenly become the standard. If something can be recycled with only 10% loss at each generation, that can reduce the consumption of virgin materials by 90%, with only a very small additional cost for the industry.
Similarly, electric vehicles cost more than internal combustion engines fueled by dirt cheap gasoline. But, they don't cost any more than ICEs when gasoline reaches $3 per gallon, a level we only reached relatively recently.
Another example: Observers of the coal indutry sometimes think that "The cheapest and best coal is gone." But the US has a lot of Illinois Basin coal, and it's both high quality, and from a larger perspective only slightly more expensive to handle due to it's sulfur content. In a competitive environment, it's winner takes all, and only slightly more costly sellers lose out completely.
So, we have to "think outside the box", and consider that we could have whole industries that eliminate oil entirely, at a cost which is surprisingly affordable.
Why didn't we do that a long time ago, then?
Because, change is painful, and we don't do it if we don't have to, as I talked about in my last post.
April 22, 2010
Will we prevent climate change?
I see huge amounts of disinformation in the media that discourage recognition of the seriousness of Climate Change. Most people seem to be in denial, and polls show that in the US that action to prevent CC is losing support.
Will we prevent climate change in time?
No, I'm pessimistic that we will. Basically, those who stand to lose because of change (either jobs, careers, or investments) fight change very, very tenaciously. They buy media outlets, they create think-tanks, they buy advertising, they buy politicians, etc, etc. The potential losers fight change with an intensity that is much, much stronger than the energy that comes from people who want change.
I see dramatic change to prevent AGW as pretty unlikely. OTOH, I'm a bit encouraged by this article:
"If you looked merely at the realm of politics, it would be easy to believe that the question, “Is climate change really happening?” is still unresolved....A spring Gallup study found that Americans’ concern over global warming peaked two years ago, and has steadily declined since.
But there’s one area where doubt hasn’t grown — and where, indeed, people are more and more certain that climate change is not only real, but imminent: The world of industry and commerce.
Companies, of course, exist to make money. That’s often what makes them seem so rapacious. But their primal greed also plants them inevitably in the “reality-based community.” If a firm’s bottom line is going to be affected by a changing climate — say, when its supply chains dry up because of drought, or its real estate gets swamped by sea-level rise — then it doesn’t particularly matter whether or not the executives want to believe in climate change. Railing at scientists for massaging tree-ring statistics won’t stop the globe from warming if the globe is actually, you know, warming. The same applies in reverse, as the folks at Beluga Shipping adroitly realized: If there are serious bucks to be made from the changing climate, then the free market is almost certainly going to jump at it.
This makes capitalism a curiously bracing mechanism for cutting through ideological haze and manufactured doubt. Politicians or pundits can distort or cherry-pick climate science any way they want to try and gain temporary influence with the public. But any serious industrialist who’s facing “climate exposure” — as it’s now called by money managers — cannot afford to engage in that sort of self-delusion. Spend a couple of hours wandering through the websites of various industrial associations — aluminum manufacturers, real-estate agents, wineries, agribusinesses, take your pick — and you’ll find straightforward statements about the grim reality of climate change that wouldn’t seem out of place coming from Greenpeace. Last year Wall Street analysts issued 214 reports assessing the potential risks and opportunities that will come out of a warming world. One by McKinsey & Co. argued that climate change will shake up industries with the same force that mobile phones reshaped communications.
More here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/climate-desk-corporations-risk
Will we prevent climate change in time?
No, I'm pessimistic that we will. Basically, those who stand to lose because of change (either jobs, careers, or investments) fight change very, very tenaciously. They buy media outlets, they create think-tanks, they buy advertising, they buy politicians, etc, etc. The potential losers fight change with an intensity that is much, much stronger than the energy that comes from people who want change.
I see dramatic change to prevent AGW as pretty unlikely. OTOH, I'm a bit encouraged by this article:
"If you looked merely at the realm of politics, it would be easy to believe that the question, “Is climate change really happening?” is still unresolved....A spring Gallup study found that Americans’ concern over global warming peaked two years ago, and has steadily declined since.
But there’s one area where doubt hasn’t grown — and where, indeed, people are more and more certain that climate change is not only real, but imminent: The world of industry and commerce.
Companies, of course, exist to make money. That’s often what makes them seem so rapacious. But their primal greed also plants them inevitably in the “reality-based community.” If a firm’s bottom line is going to be affected by a changing climate — say, when its supply chains dry up because of drought, or its real estate gets swamped by sea-level rise — then it doesn’t particularly matter whether or not the executives want to believe in climate change. Railing at scientists for massaging tree-ring statistics won’t stop the globe from warming if the globe is actually, you know, warming. The same applies in reverse, as the folks at Beluga Shipping adroitly realized: If there are serious bucks to be made from the changing climate, then the free market is almost certainly going to jump at it.
This makes capitalism a curiously bracing mechanism for cutting through ideological haze and manufactured doubt. Politicians or pundits can distort or cherry-pick climate science any way they want to try and gain temporary influence with the public. But any serious industrialist who’s facing “climate exposure” — as it’s now called by money managers — cannot afford to engage in that sort of self-delusion. Spend a couple of hours wandering through the websites of various industrial associations — aluminum manufacturers, real-estate agents, wineries, agribusinesses, take your pick — and you’ll find straightforward statements about the grim reality of climate change that wouldn’t seem out of place coming from Greenpeace. Last year Wall Street analysts issued 214 reports assessing the potential risks and opportunities that will come out of a warming world. One by McKinsey & Co. argued that climate change will shake up industries with the same force that mobile phones reshaped communications.
More here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/climate-desk-corporations-risk
April 10, 2010
Are Electric Vehicles inevitable?
Yes, says Eric Kriss (and I agree).
"A hundred years from now, historians may view the early evolution of the automobile as something of a happy confluence of unlikely events that could never be sustained; the electric car was completely inevitable, notwithstanding the gas-powered blip of the 20th century.
“You may find it remarkable,” a professor in 2108 might tell her (virtual) classroom, “but in 2008 everyone drove cars powered by petroleum engines so hot they could boil water and so poisonous they could kill you within the hour if left running in your closed garage.” But let's start at the beginning: 127 years ago.
The beginning
The first automobile, introduced at an 1881 exhibition in Paris, was – surprisingly – an electric one. But the internal combustion engine quickly eclipsed the electric motor due to the unique physical qualities of gasoline, refined in Russia for the first time in the 1860s. A German mechanical genius, Karl Benz, conceptualized the gasoline engine in the late 1870s, and just four years after the first electric car's premiere in Paris, the first gaspowered vehicle – a Benz, naturally – was introduced to the public, and the fledgling automotive industry never looked back."
See the rest here: http://fairislepress.com/dl.php?file=InevitableElectrics.pdf
"A hundred years from now, historians may view the early evolution of the automobile as something of a happy confluence of unlikely events that could never be sustained; the electric car was completely inevitable, notwithstanding the gas-powered blip of the 20th century.
“You may find it remarkable,” a professor in 2108 might tell her (virtual) classroom, “but in 2008 everyone drove cars powered by petroleum engines so hot they could boil water and so poisonous they could kill you within the hour if left running in your closed garage.” But let's start at the beginning: 127 years ago.
The beginning
The first automobile, introduced at an 1881 exhibition in Paris, was – surprisingly – an electric one. But the internal combustion engine quickly eclipsed the electric motor due to the unique physical qualities of gasoline, refined in Russia for the first time in the 1860s. A German mechanical genius, Karl Benz, conceptualized the gasoline engine in the late 1870s, and just four years after the first electric car's premiere in Paris, the first gaspowered vehicle – a Benz, naturally – was introduced to the public, and the fledgling automotive industry never looked back."
See the rest here: http://fairislepress.com/dl.php?file=InevitableElectrics.pdf
April 7, 2010
Why do people resist change?
The coverage of the coal mining accident in West Virginia made me think about the fight to eliminate coal, and the resistance that has stirred up. Sometimes people suggest that resistance to change is just a lack of enlightened leadership and a reluctant-to-change populace, due to ignorance.
So, why do people resist change?
People are afraid of change, and with good reason. When new tech arrives, companies move staff, companies shrink, whole industries shrink and shift. Old careers become obsolete. People lose jobs, or their careers stagnate. Other people gain jobs, and do better, but there are winners and losers.
Change is good overall, but some people know they'll be hurt, and others are afraid.
Just one example: I recently read that coal mining jobs pay 3x as much as anything else available in the area. Despite the risks, and the environmental devastation, you won't convince most West Virginians that shrinking coal mining is a good idea.
Does that mean we shouldn't fight to eliminate coal? No. But it does mean we should be realistic about some people fighting back. We need to be compassionate, see their realistic fears, and find ways to help them, and convert them to...not allies, perhaps, but at least something other than enemies who will fight to the death with any weapon (votes, lies, etc).
So, why do people resist change?
People are afraid of change, and with good reason. When new tech arrives, companies move staff, companies shrink, whole industries shrink and shift. Old careers become obsolete. People lose jobs, or their careers stagnate. Other people gain jobs, and do better, but there are winners and losers.
Change is good overall, but some people know they'll be hurt, and others are afraid.
Just one example: I recently read that coal mining jobs pay 3x as much as anything else available in the area. Despite the risks, and the environmental devastation, you won't convince most West Virginians that shrinking coal mining is a good idea.
Does that mean we shouldn't fight to eliminate coal? No. But it does mean we should be realistic about some people fighting back. We need to be compassionate, see their realistic fears, and find ways to help them, and convert them to...not allies, perhaps, but at least something other than enemies who will fight to the death with any weapon (votes, lies, etc).
March 16, 2010
Can we really transition from oil fast enough to deal with Peak Oil?
Sure. We need to be clear: we have two separate problems: climate change, and liquid fuels, not a general problem of peak energy. If wind and natural gas are inadequate, we have more than enough coal to keep the lights (and whatever else we want to power with electricity) on during a transition (for better or worse). See Are we running out of coal? and Are we running out of coal? - part 2
You might ask:
During a transition to what?
Wind would be the biggest, with (in rough descending order) nuclear, solar, hydro and others.
how long it would take?
However long we choose - we could do it in 20 years if we want, or we could do it in 50. 50 years would be no more expensive than BAU, but terrible for AGW mitigation.
What would be the cost of both producing those renewables
For wind: about $7/average watt capex, giving about $.07/KWH wholesale cost, or about $.12/KWH retail. That's a little more expensive than old, dirty coal plants, but it's competitive with any form of new generation (including new coal, even without sequestration). We can see in Germany and Japan that $.12/KWH is more than cheap enough to support a strong economy.
What would be the cost of converting everything that now uses oil to use those renewables?
Very little, if we did it through attrition. An EREV like the Chevy Volt will cost about the same as the average new US vehicle, with large volume production, and reduce liquid fuel consumption by 90% (that's the range that biofuels can scale to - ethanol production is about 10% of gasoline volume right now).
Don't you have to add in the cost of all those batteries and inverters?
Like the Prego commercial, "that's in there". In other words, wind power costs include inverters and transmission, and EREV costs include batteries.
The wind doesn't blow all the time
Actually, it does, somewhere. It just takes some geographic diversity to take advantage of that fact, and a moderate amount of long-distance transmission.
the sun shines only in the daytime.
Isn't it convenient that's when we use the most?
The transition target has to be vastly scalable
Which wind is.
but cost less than existing energy sources, else the effort to switch alone will cause significant disruption.
Not if the transition is long enough. We could transition over 30 years, and that's more than enough time to amortize the capex of existing generation. Personal vehicles, of course, last a much shorter time: we can replace about 10% of VMT per year with no pain at all.
How could we replace about 10% of VMT per year - wouldn't that require new car sales of 25M per year (50% more than the all time record)?
The thing you have to keep in mind is that some vehicles travel many more miles than other: Commercial vehicles like taxis drive much more, and newer personal vehicles drive more. Vehicles less than 1 year old account for roughly 10% of US Vehicle Miles travelled.
An aggressive transition to electric would accelerate that tendency, both in terms of sales and in terms of preferential usage of new vehicles. After all, what difference is there between current new vehicles and those from 50 years ago, when automatic transmissions were introduced? Sure, electronic stability control and ABS are nice, but 95% of new vehicle sales come from a desire for the latest fashion - that's part of why people can so easily defer purchases during times of uncertainly, like the last 2 years.
Any transition to more expensive energy, which is the only reasonable expectation, will cause significantly greater pain.
A little, but we see in Japan and Germany that electricity twice as expensive as that in the US can easily support a strong economy.
Can renewables really make up the difference?
There's at least 5x as much easily usable wind resource as we need, and 1,000x as much solar.
But a great acceleration would be necessary.
That's the thing - it wouldn't. First, wind is already "here" - it provided 42% of new generation in the US last year. 2nd, we have enough coal to cover any transition (unless, of course, we want to do something about climate change, as we should - but that's a different problem).
can we afford wind?
An investment of about $2.6k in wind power per vehicle could provide all the "fuel" needed for personal transportation (13k miles per year/4miles per KWH/8760 hours per year x $7 per watt = $2,597). For 100k miles, that's about $.03/mile, much less than gas or diesel. It will be easy and cheap to power EREV/EVs (either bicycles or Volts). As this article stresses, that's the big kahuna.
That assumes $2 per nameplate watt, at 30% capacity factor. The US has more than enough of that, at that price, to supply 200% of our current electricity consumption. Heck, either N. Dakota or Texas alone could provide 30-50%.
What role do you see conservation, efficiency and simple doing without playing in your future scenario?
Really, we haven't converted to a renewable electricity economy already because it would hurt the careers and investments of too many people. When we get to the "tipping point" where the overall society demands solutions to AGW and PO, we'll move very quickly to EREV/EVs and wind power - there will be some temporary personal conservation on the way, but that won't be the primary thing.
Heck, why do without when you can just buy an EREV/EV?
if we put all our energy into producing enough solar and wind energy to power a world of Prius cars and don't have enough resources to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations we have wasted our remaining fossil fuel resources.
So manufacturing wind/solar might use so much resources that we wouldn't have enough to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations? The answer: we have more than enough energy to do both. First, manufacturing (of solar panels, wind turbines, grid equipment or charging stations) mainly uses electricity, and we have plenty of that from coal (see how useful it is to deal with things one at a time?), if needed. 2nd, wind has a very high E-ROI, meaning that it will pay for itself. 3rd, HEVs don't need grid upgrades or charging, and the grid is just fine as it is for a pretty large buildup of EREV/EVs.
Isn't the statistic that matters how much of our current FF fired electrical generation has been replaced by wind or any other source?
No, it really doesn't. Nobody's retiring generation at the moment, unless it's seriously functionally obsolete. People often get confused by that point, but it's a red herring.
There is a difference between having enough power, and decarbonizing our power. We should decarbonize our power, but that's very different from the premise that we're running out of energy.
We are at least as dependent upon FF for for energy today as we were 5 years ago. And possibley more so. Isn't that the big issue?
That's the issue for decarbonizing. But it's not the issue for our economy running out of power We have plenty of coal - enough to bake the planet. Will we do so? I'm afraid we probably will...but we won't run out of electricity.
But isn't our economy going to grind to a halt because of oil scarcity?
No. The food-and-goods freight transport network of the modern world uses about 25% of oil consumption in the US. Light vehicles overall account for 45% of oil consumption: their utilization could be doubled with carpooling in a matter of months, freeing up whatever fuel was needed by the freight network.
What about historical examples of societies that didn't recover well from economic transitions, like the US South after the Civil War?
I don't think the South is a very useful model for most of the world. It might be a good model for oil exporters.
First, it needs to be said that the South lost the first modern war of total destruction. 30% of all white males aged 18-40 were killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). There are usually more injuries than deaths: very likely only 20% of the white adult males were left healthy at the end of the war. Both ex-masters and ex-slaves were left without financial, industrial or technological capital with which to rebuild. Transportation, industry and even agriculture were laid waste - think of Sherman's march to the sea: everything was systematically destroyed.
The impact of slavery on human capital may have been the worst: slavery left a cultural heritage of passivity and violent authoritarianism (classism, racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc, etc) for both ex-masters and ex-slaves that cannot be underestimated (as discussed above regarding West Point traditions). To work (especially with your hands) was dishonorable for ex-masters, and to think and take responsibility for oneself was terrifying for people who had been publically tortured and killed for centuries, and who now faced a similar lynching campaign. The lack of more practical human capital can't be underestimated: ex-slaves didn't know how to read and write, how to run their lives (handling money, land titles, etc), how to raise their children or relate to spouses, etc, etc.
2nd, the South was a commodity exporter, like Russia and Saudi Arabia today. It was devastated by the "resource curse". "During the time of the Civil War, there was a dramatic slowdown in British cotton demand. As the textile industry matured, its rapid replacement of traditional methods naturally slowed. While the industry was still growing, its rate of growth slowed to match the relatively natural growth of population and incomes. The drop in demand growth, coupled with the tremendous cotton supply coming from the Southeastern states, led to falling prices. As poor conditions persisted for South Carolina’s cotton producers, no viable alternative crop could be found. The now relatively stagnant cotton economy remained until the end of the 19th century, as industrialization reached the state."
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/ced/lgp-reports/Economy.PDF
All in all, the South had a uniquely frozen culture, due to the violence, abuse and misinformation required to maintain a slave society, and the "resource curse" created by it's dependence on a single export commodity (cotton) in a single industry (agriculture). Despite the availability of capital from the North, the South was in a uniquely unfavorable position for adaptation to a new world. It may be a model for oil exporters like Russia and KSA, but not for dynamic, educated countries in the OECD.
Wouldn't affluent people used to a consumerist lifestyle have comparable problems to face new realities?
OECD economies show a much greater ability to change. Look at Japan post 1870. Look at Germany and Japan post-WWII. Look at the US post-WWII. Look at the world car industry, which is gearing up to produce EVs, something which they found anathema only 5-15 years ago.
----------
Didn't it take a couple of generation for horse transportation to be replaced by street cars and ICE vehicles?
Yes, and difficulty of the transition contributed at least a bit to the Depression. The difference: hybrids, EREVs and EVs are being built by the same companies that built ICE vehicles, operate the same way, cost the same over their life-cycle, and need very little new infrastructure (90% of US vehicle owners have access to off-street parking, and more than 50% have private garages). The difficulty of the transition is orders of magnitude smaller.
--
Doesn't an energy transition require heavy investment which is not easily forthcoming under crisis conditions?
On the one hand, that's assuming the premise that Peak Oil will cause economic crisis. On the other, it's precisely under crisis conditions when investment is easiest - look at WWII: the US Depression ended because the war provided a good excuse for massive governmental spending and investment.
---------------------
The most important element of a transition from oil is the electrification of transportation. Surprisingly, the first part of the EV revolution has been here for years, in the form of the Prius. The Prius cuts fuel consumption by 50% (50MPG vs the US fleet average of 22MPG), in the US hybrids are 3% of new sales, and there are more than 1,000,000 on the road.
And now, the Leaf and the Volt are coming out, and it is really clear that we have all the technology we need, we just need to use it.
You might ask:
During a transition to what?
Wind would be the biggest, with (in rough descending order) nuclear, solar, hydro and others.
how long it would take?
However long we choose - we could do it in 20 years if we want, or we could do it in 50. 50 years would be no more expensive than BAU, but terrible for AGW mitigation.
What would be the cost of both producing those renewables
For wind: about $7/average watt capex, giving about $.07/KWH wholesale cost, or about $.12/KWH retail. That's a little more expensive than old, dirty coal plants, but it's competitive with any form of new generation (including new coal, even without sequestration). We can see in Germany and Japan that $.12/KWH is more than cheap enough to support a strong economy.
What would be the cost of converting everything that now uses oil to use those renewables?
Very little, if we did it through attrition. An EREV like the Chevy Volt will cost about the same as the average new US vehicle, with large volume production, and reduce liquid fuel consumption by 90% (that's the range that biofuels can scale to - ethanol production is about 10% of gasoline volume right now).
Don't you have to add in the cost of all those batteries and inverters?
Like the Prego commercial, "that's in there". In other words, wind power costs include inverters and transmission, and EREV costs include batteries.
The wind doesn't blow all the time
Actually, it does, somewhere. It just takes some geographic diversity to take advantage of that fact, and a moderate amount of long-distance transmission.
the sun shines only in the daytime.
Isn't it convenient that's when we use the most?
The transition target has to be vastly scalable
Which wind is.
but cost less than existing energy sources, else the effort to switch alone will cause significant disruption.
Not if the transition is long enough. We could transition over 30 years, and that's more than enough time to amortize the capex of existing generation. Personal vehicles, of course, last a much shorter time: we can replace about 10% of VMT per year with no pain at all.
How could we replace about 10% of VMT per year - wouldn't that require new car sales of 25M per year (50% more than the all time record)?
The thing you have to keep in mind is that some vehicles travel many more miles than other: Commercial vehicles like taxis drive much more, and newer personal vehicles drive more. Vehicles less than 1 year old account for roughly 10% of US Vehicle Miles travelled.
An aggressive transition to electric would accelerate that tendency, both in terms of sales and in terms of preferential usage of new vehicles. After all, what difference is there between current new vehicles and those from 50 years ago, when automatic transmissions were introduced? Sure, electronic stability control and ABS are nice, but 95% of new vehicle sales come from a desire for the latest fashion - that's part of why people can so easily defer purchases during times of uncertainly, like the last 2 years.
Any transition to more expensive energy, which is the only reasonable expectation, will cause significantly greater pain.
A little, but we see in Japan and Germany that electricity twice as expensive as that in the US can easily support a strong economy.
Can renewables really make up the difference?
There's at least 5x as much easily usable wind resource as we need, and 1,000x as much solar.
But a great acceleration would be necessary.
That's the thing - it wouldn't. First, wind is already "here" - it provided 42% of new generation in the US last year. 2nd, we have enough coal to cover any transition (unless, of course, we want to do something about climate change, as we should - but that's a different problem).
can we afford wind?
An investment of about $2.6k in wind power per vehicle could provide all the "fuel" needed for personal transportation (13k miles per year/4miles per KWH/8760 hours per year x $7 per watt = $2,597). For 100k miles, that's about $.03/mile, much less than gas or diesel. It will be easy and cheap to power EREV/EVs (either bicycles or Volts). As this article stresses, that's the big kahuna.
That assumes $2 per nameplate watt, at 30% capacity factor. The US has more than enough of that, at that price, to supply 200% of our current electricity consumption. Heck, either N. Dakota or Texas alone could provide 30-50%.
What role do you see conservation, efficiency and simple doing without playing in your future scenario?
Really, we haven't converted to a renewable electricity economy already because it would hurt the careers and investments of too many people. When we get to the "tipping point" where the overall society demands solutions to AGW and PO, we'll move very quickly to EREV/EVs and wind power - there will be some temporary personal conservation on the way, but that won't be the primary thing.
Heck, why do without when you can just buy an EREV/EV?
if we put all our energy into producing enough solar and wind energy to power a world of Prius cars and don't have enough resources to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations we have wasted our remaining fossil fuel resources.
So manufacturing wind/solar might use so much resources that we wouldn't have enough to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations? The answer: we have more than enough energy to do both. First, manufacturing (of solar panels, wind turbines, grid equipment or charging stations) mainly uses electricity, and we have plenty of that from coal (see how useful it is to deal with things one at a time?), if needed. 2nd, wind has a very high E-ROI, meaning that it will pay for itself. 3rd, HEVs don't need grid upgrades or charging, and the grid is just fine as it is for a pretty large buildup of EREV/EVs.
Isn't the statistic that matters how much of our current FF fired electrical generation has been replaced by wind or any other source?
No, it really doesn't. Nobody's retiring generation at the moment, unless it's seriously functionally obsolete. People often get confused by that point, but it's a red herring.
There is a difference between having enough power, and decarbonizing our power. We should decarbonize our power, but that's very different from the premise that we're running out of energy.
We are at least as dependent upon FF for for energy today as we were 5 years ago. And possibley more so. Isn't that the big issue?
That's the issue for decarbonizing. But it's not the issue for our economy running out of power We have plenty of coal - enough to bake the planet. Will we do so? I'm afraid we probably will...but we won't run out of electricity.
But isn't our economy going to grind to a halt because of oil scarcity?
No. The food-and-goods freight transport network of the modern world uses about 25% of oil consumption in the US. Light vehicles overall account for 45% of oil consumption: their utilization could be doubled with carpooling in a matter of months, freeing up whatever fuel was needed by the freight network.
What about historical examples of societies that didn't recover well from economic transitions, like the US South after the Civil War?
I don't think the South is a very useful model for most of the world. It might be a good model for oil exporters.
First, it needs to be said that the South lost the first modern war of total destruction. 30% of all white males aged 18-40 were killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). There are usually more injuries than deaths: very likely only 20% of the white adult males were left healthy at the end of the war. Both ex-masters and ex-slaves were left without financial, industrial or technological capital with which to rebuild. Transportation, industry and even agriculture were laid waste - think of Sherman's march to the sea: everything was systematically destroyed.
The impact of slavery on human capital may have been the worst: slavery left a cultural heritage of passivity and violent authoritarianism (classism, racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc, etc) for both ex-masters and ex-slaves that cannot be underestimated (as discussed above regarding West Point traditions). To work (especially with your hands) was dishonorable for ex-masters, and to think and take responsibility for oneself was terrifying for people who had been publically tortured and killed for centuries, and who now faced a similar lynching campaign. The lack of more practical human capital can't be underestimated: ex-slaves didn't know how to read and write, how to run their lives (handling money, land titles, etc), how to raise their children or relate to spouses, etc, etc.
2nd, the South was a commodity exporter, like Russia and Saudi Arabia today. It was devastated by the "resource curse". "During the time of the Civil War, there was a dramatic slowdown in British cotton demand. As the textile industry matured, its rapid replacement of traditional methods naturally slowed. While the industry was still growing, its rate of growth slowed to match the relatively natural growth of population and incomes. The drop in demand growth, coupled with the tremendous cotton supply coming from the Southeastern states, led to falling prices. As poor conditions persisted for South Carolina’s cotton producers, no viable alternative crop could be found. The now relatively stagnant cotton economy remained until the end of the 19th century, as industrialization reached the state."
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/ced/lgp-reports/Economy.PDF
All in all, the South had a uniquely frozen culture, due to the violence, abuse and misinformation required to maintain a slave society, and the "resource curse" created by it's dependence on a single export commodity (cotton) in a single industry (agriculture). Despite the availability of capital from the North, the South was in a uniquely unfavorable position for adaptation to a new world. It may be a model for oil exporters like Russia and KSA, but not for dynamic, educated countries in the OECD.
Wouldn't affluent people used to a consumerist lifestyle have comparable problems to face new realities?
OECD economies show a much greater ability to change. Look at Japan post 1870. Look at Germany and Japan post-WWII. Look at the US post-WWII. Look at the world car industry, which is gearing up to produce EVs, something which they found anathema only 5-15 years ago.
----------
Didn't it take a couple of generation for horse transportation to be replaced by street cars and ICE vehicles?
Yes, and difficulty of the transition contributed at least a bit to the Depression. The difference: hybrids, EREVs and EVs are being built by the same companies that built ICE vehicles, operate the same way, cost the same over their life-cycle, and need very little new infrastructure (90% of US vehicle owners have access to off-street parking, and more than 50% have private garages). The difficulty of the transition is orders of magnitude smaller.
--
Doesn't an energy transition require heavy investment which is not easily forthcoming under crisis conditions?
On the one hand, that's assuming the premise that Peak Oil will cause economic crisis. On the other, it's precisely under crisis conditions when investment is easiest - look at WWII: the US Depression ended because the war provided a good excuse for massive governmental spending and investment.
---------------------
The most important element of a transition from oil is the electrification of transportation. Surprisingly, the first part of the EV revolution has been here for years, in the form of the Prius. The Prius cuts fuel consumption by 50% (50MPG vs the US fleet average of 22MPG), in the US hybrids are 3% of new sales, and there are more than 1,000,000 on the road.
And now, the Leaf and the Volt are coming out, and it is really clear that we have all the technology we need, we just need to use it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)