Advice to Obama on energy

I don't necessarily always agree with Robert Rapier, but he's one of the most cogent and comprehensive thinkers on U.S. energy policy and he has an open letter to President-elect Obama on his energy plan.  The highlights:

A 4-point program
1). Minimizing per capita energy usage
2). Finding sustainable, affordable alternatives
3). Managing the down side of the production peak such that severe shortages are avoided.
4). Communicating to the public the nature of the problem, and explaining why sacrifice is needed.

Rapier's criticisms of Obama:

• We will need more domestic fossil fuel production in the near term to bridge the gap between fossil fuel and renewables (windfall profits taxes will kill exploration)
  
• Prices must rise to constrain consumption [YES]
  
• Reliance on ethanol to supplant oil means long-term unsustainability - corn farming depletes soil nutrition, fertilizer comes from natural gas, and irrigation (and ethanol production) deplete aquifers [true, we need a next-generation biofuel, but mostly we need plug-in hybrid cars]
  
• We need nuclear to help bridge between coal-fired electricity and (capital-intensive and often rural) renewable electricity [NO - for what nuclear costs, we could probably build enough renewables with battery storage]
  

Rapier's agreement with Obama

• Plug-in hybrids
• Incentives for wind, solar, geothermal,
• Weatherizing homes
  

Long term fiscal stimulus: a New Deal

Renewable energy and energy efficiency could be the foundation for long term economic sustainability.  And it could provide an outlet for government to provide substantial economic stimulus in the short term.

Stopping the stupid in energy policy

Two NY Times columnists have illustrated the stupidity of American energy proposals in the last week.  And sadly, they both recognize that we have a serious lack of political will to meet the energy challenge.

Last week, Paul Krugman noted that the GOP is making a name for itself as the "know nothing" party - proposing simplistic and naive "solutions" for energy problems and calling detractors terrorists or French. 

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

But it's not just Republicans that are selling America short.  Friedman tours the Scandinavian countries and marvels at their commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy.  Hotel hallways have lights on sensors in Greenland.  Half of Copenhagen commuters ride bikes and 20% of their electricity comes from wind turbines (in the U.S., it's 1%).   

The Danes responded to the 1973 Oil crisis with a commitment to being free from foreign oil addictions.  They made gasoline cost $10 a gallon and juiced their economy by lowering income and other personal taxes. 

In 1973, said [climate and energy minister] Hedegaard, “we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero.”

Back home, both presidential candidates are proposing to add to offshore drilling and even tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to give addicted Americans another hit on the oil bong.  Where's the vision?  Even the previously-staid Al Gore has a better offer - getting 100 percent of our electricity from renewable, domestic resources in 10 years. 

Now that's worth voting for.

Five things our next president must do on energy

From Robert Rapier at R-Squared

1. Raise gas taxes by $2 a gallon, offset by income tax rebates
   
2. Rebates for high-efficiency vehicles, penalties for low-efficiency ones.
3. Find renewable energy substitutes that do not rely on fossil fuel inputs.
4. Extend tax credits for solar, geothermal, and other pure renewables.
5. Increase funding for research on converting to an electric-driven transportation system.
   

Energyville: what's your energy mix?

Want to try your hand at developing a practical and environmentally-sound energy mix for a city of the future? Check out Energyville, a simulation by Chevron. You can select from several conventional and renewable power sources and the game rates your selection by its economic, environmental, and security impact.

A solar thought experiment

Update 7/30/07: Mr Rapier updated his figures, and so have I

Just how many solar panels would it take to power the entire United States? Blogger Robert Rapier takes on this hypothetical thought experiment and comes up with some interesting (and very rough) figures:

Area required: 72 miles by 72 miles 50 miles x 50 miles
Cost: $670 billion $309 billion per year over 10 years
Carbon emissions avoided: 2,375 million metric tons (a 1/3 reduction in "anthropogenic" emissions)

Context: the U.S. federal government has annual revenues of $2.4 trillion (it spends a few hundred billion more). This solar extravaganza would be about 1/4 13% of the annual budget.

How much more can we hate ethanol?

Folks rip it for being made from fossil-fuel intensive corn, for having less energy per gallon, and for getting subsidies. But here's my deal on ethanol:

1. You got anything better to stick in your tank? Don't tell me about hydrogen or cellulosic ethanol or any other pipe dream of a fuel. Do they sell it at Super America?
2. Where does oil money go? OPEC. Where does ethanol money go? Farmers. Half of ethanol plants are owned by corn farmers in cooperatives.
3. Heard ethanol will increase food prices? Not by as much as higher oil prices, which add a shipping premium to all those supermarket foods. And to reference #1, do you have a better plan?

Ethanol. Imperfect, but better than nothing.

Without big money, your roof won't be going solar soon

Clean Break has a well-written but downhearted look at the cost picture for residential renewable energy. The problem? Government incentives don't come close to covering the initial expense - even in Canada - and the high demand for renewables has pushed up prices as suppliers fail to keep pace.

How bad is the cost outlook? Here's Tyler's look at installing solar on his roof compared to re-roofing with regular shingles:

The retail cost of each [solar power] shingle, however, is $198. So a 3 kilowatt system would cost about $35,000, while the 2 kilowatt system would be $23,000. Now, let's keep in mind that this excludes installation costs and the cost of power electronics that would be required to be grid-connected. Given I could re-roof my home with regular shingles for about $6,000 to $8,000, going with BIPV is still cost prohibitive -- even with the standard offer incentive.

He also looked into a geothermal heat exchanger, an underground piping system that takes advantage of ground temperatures being close to 50 degrees F year-round.

Okay, so what about a geo-exchange system? Certainly much more affordable, but costs can range anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000 depending on the installer. Plus, there's a huge wait time for getting someone to drill in your yard -- particularly if you live in an urban area.

I've looked into some of these ideas for renewable energy for my house and have found similar problems. High upfront costs and long payback periods (10 years or more). Maybe I'll just turn the thermostat down a couple degrees instead...

Plug-in hybrids can reduce pollution, too

The tireless folks at Energista have struck energy information gold again, reviewing two new reports at the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The more interesting (to me) is the report analyzing the air pollution impact of converting Minnesota's vehicle fleet to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).

PHEVs are an existing-technology route to gaining oil independence by shifting fuel use to electricity. When combined with a flexible fuel engine capable of using E85 or biodiesel, a car could get over 100 miles per gallon of fuel and more than 500 miles per gallon of gasoline.

I examined this technology in a past post and concluded that for $170 billion, the United States could achieve oil independence in two years, assuming a price premium of $5000 for a hybrid engine and $100 to make it flex-fuel compatible.

The Minnesota report shows that for almost all criteria air pollutants, a fleet of PHEVs would reduce pollution compared to regular cars (the exception being sulfur dioxide, due to most Minnesota electricity coming from coal). However, with Minnesota already committed to 25% renewable electricity by 2025, these figures can only improve.

Ideology leads to inanity

There are plenty of problems with ethanol, from its relatively low energy balance to the use of corn - a high-intensity crop - to produce it. But whether or not ethanol is the dream fuel, no amount of wishing will make oil shale a better option. There are so many ways to dismantle this argument, but I'll just do one.

In the first section, Mr. Feulner of the Heritage Foundation notes that ethanol is a poor choice because of it's refining challenges:

For one thing, it's expensive to refine ethanol (emphasis mine)

But after he gushes about the availability of oil shale and its potential to supply all of US oil needs by 2020, Feulner admits:

...there's a reason the U.S. economy doesn't already run on oil shale: It's difficult to collect and refine. (emphasis mine)

So let's check the scorecard on oil shale, which the RAND Foundation says can't be developed unless oil prices top $70-95/barrel:

• Gallons of fuel produced last year: (Ethanol - 4 billion; Oil from shale - 0)
• Carbon reductions over gasoline: (Ethanol 5-10%; Oil from shale - 0)
• Renewable: (Ethanol - yes; oil shale - no)

Sounds like a real winner...

It's not enough to turn out the lights

It probably doesn't hurt that I have a new job doing research on alternative energy and local economic development, but I've been enthralled recently by ways to reduce electric bills. The concept of vampire appliances has particularly caught my attention, because it's annoying to think that I'm paying for electricity when I'm not even using a device. If you have a TV, a DVD player, or a home security system, check this out.

Oh, and if you're looking for compact fluorescent bulbs that have similar color to incadescents but don't cost an arm and a leg, check out this company for your energy efficient bulbs.