Energy Matters

T. Boone Pickens

Today I went to T. Boone Pickens's talk about the Pickens Plan (and I even got to ask a question about it) and I think I am tentatively in favor of the plan if it is followed 100%. The Pickens Plan is pretty straight forward: Our nation spends about $700 Billion dollars a year on foreign oil and that's bad. He says that we are not an oil exporting nation, but we act as if we are which is very bad. Most countries (like Spain, Germany and Japan) that aren't big oil producers realize they are and thus TRY NOT TO BUILD THEIR ENTIRE FRIGGIN ECONOMY ON IT.
It would be nice to kick the foreign oil habit. Our economy is too focused on oil to just ditch it entirely but it would be more politically feasible to kick the foreign oil habit and in the process help transition to a fossil fuel-free economy.

His plan: Cars and Trucks need liquid fuels (the technology is getting there for electric cars, but as he said "A battery won't move an 18 wheeler") which means either oil, natural gas or biofuels. Well biofuels isn't the best of ideas, what with the whole food--> fuel= starvation in the third world, and oil is the habit we're trying to kick which leaves us with natural gas. In 2006 the US generated about 20% of its energy from NG (although T. Boone said now it's 22%). The Pickens Plan says we should take that NG, and use it to power our vehicles and sub in even cleaner wind and solar power to fill the vacancy left by NG. NG generates about 22% of our electricity but the same amount would be able to replace 38% of our imported oil.

This is a fine idea environmentally as NG burns cleaner than oil and renewables are cleaner than NG but the plan is only a good one if renewables replace NG and not coal.

He advocates a wind power corridor from North Dakota to west Texas and a solar belt in the South west in order to revive rural America. He says wind power will (and has) bring (and brought) jobs to rural America since wind turbines are so huge that you have to build them close to where you place them to make it less than a logistical nightmare.

He recognizes that switching from oil to natural gas won't solve our energy issue as NG is a finite resource but it will help get us out of a LOT of debt and buy us 20 years to make the full switch to a carbon-free economy
There were a few other interesting point about his talk:

• He laughed at the idea that we can drill our way out of the energy crisis since we would need to have more oil in untapped reserves than Saudi Arabia produces a day.
• We currently import about 1 million barrels from Mexico a day but in the near future Mexico will become an oil importer so we won't be able to get that from them anymore
• ANWR can't get contribute more than 2 million barrels a day as its pipeline cannot physically transport more than that
• He said that Global Warming is the next big problem but our energy crisis is the current one and that's why he and Al Gore haven't been working together all that closely. Obviously I think Global Warming is a much larger issue but the Pickens Plan can be a good large step in the right direction.
• He did not talk about offshore wind even though there are better wind resources off shore AND it's closer to major population centers thus reducing transmission losses. When someone asked about it he cited NIMBYs and terrorists (*eye roll*)
• He did not mention encouraging efficiency or conservation until I asked him about it. When I asked him whether he didn't mention it for a particular reason he went onto a very lengthy talk about how those are both very important parts of any energy solution and how it's fundamental to an energy plan. I just wished he talked more about it as energy conservation and increased efficiency has an immediate economy and environmental effect.

But as a whole it was a very good talk and as he pointed out our nation's energy situation is so bad that pretty much any energy plan (besides liquid coal) would be a vast improvement.

Yarr It Be Talk Like a Pirate Day

Yar it be talk like a pirate day, or in the case of this swash buckler it's blog like a pirate day.

 

So the question be is a life of piracy sustainable and the answer be no (yarrr).

 

They do sail the seven seas free of any oil but they simply be bandits of the high seas who live gluttonous lives,  take from society and give nothing back which isn't very sustainable, yarr. They be more of a scurvy plague upon the high seas and ports.

Be they are friggin sweet.

Software piracy (which I don't condone) is pretty green though.

---
Ninja's are actually pretty eco-friendly since they seek balance in all that they do and they try to tread lightly on the earth. But pirates have wenches and rum so they win.

Nintendo pro wind power message

In two very popular Nintendo Wii games, Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Mario Galaxy, there is a very unlikely piece of scenery: wind turbines. In Brawl (picture at the bottom) they show up in a part of the level Pokemon Stadium 2. In Marion Galaxy, there is one at the very end of a level where Mario rolls a ball on a golf course-like stage. I couldn't find a picture of it but here is a picture of the level.

I guess society has made further strides than I thought in bringing renewable energy into the mainstream and making them cool.

Earth Hour and Economics

Another Earth Hour has come and gone. Thousand or millions of people around the globe did not use electricity for 1 hour to help protect the Earth and send a message. I believe that it is a fine cause but it reminded me of an issue that's been nagging me for a while.

While solar technologies have advanced so that their costs of production has gone down, the demand for solar has increased so much that the costs per panel have gone up. It's that whole supply and demand thing. Now, if everyone started using wind, solar and other renewables because they become cost competitive with advancements in the technology, the demand for coal, and NG will drop (oil a little bit but since it is mainly used for transportation and not electrical generation it wouldn't be greatly affected). But if the price per ton of coal drops because people are switching away from it, the demand for coal will increase because it is cheaper.

Ignoring government policies (which is a huge assumption) our electrical portfolio should naturally balance at some mix between all energy sources and efficiency. However, that ratio has been out of whack because of subsidies, tax breaks, permit waivers, low interest loans, and and the non-monetary coast of emissions and environmental degradation are not taken into account.

But what if it was an entirely even playing field and the utility rate reflected the true cost of generating that kWh. ( For more info on the "true cost" of things check out storyofstuff.com) As we reach a climate tipping point, the cost per ton of carbon dioxide emissions should be very high, that along with the environmental costs of extraction, and the other emissions coal is probably not cost competitive. But I wonder how the mix would end up? Will we have a RE replace coal and generate 40% of our electricity, or will it be more evenly divided between energy source?

Of course, that is provided that a carbon tax is passed.
 

Scary China fact for the moment

Currently I am taking a class called "China, energy and the environment". It's a very interesting class and with each reading assignment (of which there are many) I am learning tons of scary China energy facts. I'm not sure if I'll save them up for one post, or post them as I see them, but we'll see.

So, today's scary China fact is (drum roll please)*

From now until 2030, at current energy growth rates, China is projected to add 1312 GW to its generating capacity, which is more than the total current installed capacity in the US
(“IEA World Energy Outlook)
--
Imagine if you will, another US energy system...inside another country...on top of what they already have...

And we are going to power that....how? Peak Oil is 2015... coal kills the earth (sure carbon capture and storage will happen someday, right around we get the cold fusion thing to work)...and that many nuclear power plants would be able to make western China glow in the dark (not to mention the whole, we have yet to develop a permanent way of storing the radioactive waste).

Looks like solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal and the rest of the Renewable bunch are going to have to step up to the plate. Makes me wonder why BP is open to the idea of selling its alternative energy division.

Gaza and modern Sieges

So, recently the state of Israel has besieged Gaza strip because of terrorist attacks from Hamas, and has cut off fuel supplies to the main power plant in the region that supplies the are with 40% of it's power.  The parts of the strip that get power via powerlines from Israel and Egypt have not had their power interrupted.

Lets turn our eyes away from the bigger political picture and just look at it this way. One areas fossil fuel resources have been cut off by another nation. The strained relations between the two areas make it unlikely that the supply lines will be reestablished anytime soon. (sounds almost like whats going on with the Ukraine and Russia).

If I were the nation that had my fuel supplies cut off, and if I were freaking out about the inability to import my energy, I think I'd try to become energy independent. The more independent I/a nation am/is the less effective a blockade will be.

So why don't the Palestinians in Gaza, or Hamas, invest in solar panels, wind turbines, and wave power in this strip of land on the Mediterranean coast? They might not have the funds, but other nations who have expressed concerns about a possible humanitarian crisis (the EU) have the money.  Why don't the Germans and Spanish share some of their solar and wind tech with the Palestinians to help avert this potential humanitarian crisis? Why hasn't Hamas or the non-terrorist Palestinian Authority asked for this help?

Japan, Spain, the US and a few other countries are assembling a fund to help poorer nations reduce their GHG emissions, can't the Palestinians get access to some of these funds and put up some solar panels?

I know there could be issues with transparency. But by sending the panels and turbines to Gaza strip along with some third-party installers to get the system up and running, money won't have to change hands. Thus, there can be no fear that this money would go to buying more Qazams.

Regardless where you stand on the Israel/Palestinian issue, removing the need for fuel in Gaza means that there is one less thing to worry about in the negotiations. With that need satisfied, peace-negotiations can go a little bit smoother and a little bit faster.

Isn't that something that ultimately we can all agree on?

---

update: Treehugger.com just did an article about the fuel sanctions for the Gaza strip have resulted in Gazans using falafel and other kinds of food waste oil mmm who would have guessed that would happen.

Renewable Energy Island: Bonaire

Check out this neat article about the small island of Bonaire going 100% renewable. It's good to see that the small island is taking steps to insure its energy security and curtail its GHG emissions. I hope larger, more polluting nations will learn from Bonarie's good example before rising sea levels sink most of the tiny island (it has some mountains, so the whole thing won't sink).

It seems like this is a pretty obvious solution for most island nations' energy problems. Most small island nations (like the other 20 something ones in the Caribbean)  don't have  fossil fuel reserves. But they do have great sun resources, good wind conditions (although they can get the occasional hurricane), and access to wave power. Expect to see more small island nations get fed up with paying increasingly high fuel costs and going 100% renewable.

This will most likely be emulated by many mad-scientist for their secret volcano island lairs because nothing gives away a secret lair like an oil tanker drop off it's monthly fuel supply.

Biomimicry in Energy

Biomimicry (life-mimic, designing things based off of nature) is not only pretty nifty, but has made a lot of news with solar and wind power lately.

For wind, US scientists found out that tubercles (or to use the technical term) the-little-bumps-on-the-back-of-a-humpback-whale's-fin "result in 32 percent less drag and an 8 percent rise in lift when compared to a smooth fin." Or simply put, they are a lot better and easier to move around. So by using some biomimicry and putting tubercles (aka those bumpie thingies) on a wind turbine's blade, they would become much more efficient at generating energy and generate power at lower wind speeds. This would probably result in wind power generation being more consistent (see earlier post) and giving at a leg up on other generation methods.

But wait, Solar strikes back with its own biomimicry!

Moth eyes are very non-reflective, which is a goal for all solar panels as decreased reflectiveness boosts power generation. Evidently moth eyes are non-reflective because they have lots of tiny bumps that are arranged in such a way that almost no light is reflected. Peng Jiang from the University of Florida who made this discovery says that:
"A method of spin coating is used to create the effect. Nanoparticles in a liquid suspension are placed on a silicon wafer, similar to those used in solar cells. As the wafer is spun, the force created distributes the nanoparticles in the liquid. A sort of mask is created that can be used as a template. Etching is used to transfer the nanoparticle structure onto the silicon wafer beneath."

Both uses of biomimicry are using the Earth to help the Earth, but my money is that whale bumps are going to help more than moth bumps because of the influences it'll have on wind power, tidal power, airplane fuel efficiency, ceiling fan efficiency and other turbines that we rely on in every-day life that I can't think of.

The lesson of the day seems to be this:
1) learn from nature since mother-earth has been doing this stuff for a lot longer than we have
2) bio-diversity is good for inspiring us and improving our technological capacity (it's good for other things too)
and most importantly
3) bumps are the key to everything.

--
and a big thanks to treehugger.com for the inspiration/information for this post.

Reliability, Solar v. Wind

A recent paper put out by the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center looked at which energy source was more reliable on a large scale, PV or wind, and they decided that:

"Due to the larger magnitude of solar PV power output fluctuations relative to those of wind at time scales shorter than approximately 31⁄2 hours, the costs of large scale solar PV integration are likely to be larger than those of wind."

So look for more utility owned wind farms when a national RPS is passed. But there will probably be many hybrid plants as wind blows (mainly) at night and the sun shines in the day
--
Not saying that solar isn't important or can't be used on a large scale (just look at Arizona or Spain)

Rate Decoupling and the average Joe

Under rate decoupling, utilities are guaranteed a certain level of revenue to be collected by charging their customers a certain rate. But what does this mean for the average electrical bill? 
Lets say in year 1, Utility has 10,000 customers and is allowed to make $10,000,000 a year. Assuming everyone uses 1,000kWh (I know that is an extremely low number for the average Amercian) each person would pay the utility $1,000 a year and the rate per kWh would be $1.

Now in year 2, everything stays the same except Joe decides to be part of the DOE's "Change a Light, Change the World" project and buys a lot of CFLs, or LEDs, and other Energy Star products to half his energy consumption. He will now buy 500kWh from the utility but since the average energy demand for all of Utilities's customers barely dropped (change from 1,000kWh a customer to 999.95kWh a customer)  the $1/kWh rate still would hold or increase slightly to generate the same amount of revenue ($1.000005/kWh). So Joe would save $500 that year while everyone else would pay the same or maybe 5 cents more than last year. Good for Joe.

Now, 9 of Joe's friends see that Joe just saved a bunch of money on his electric bill, so they do what Joe did and halves their energy use. Now average energy use is 999.5kWh for the 10,000 customers of the utility and to make their guaranteed $10,000,000 they will charge  $1.0005/kWh. Thus, the electric bill for someone whose energy use has not changed will be $1,000.50. So the average consumer whose energy use habits are not changing will have a higher electric bill if another customer of the Utility reduces their energy use (or dies/moves away).

Assuming constant population, rate decoupling means that each customer of the utility will have to try to use less energy than the average customer in order to not only save money on their electric bill, but to not have a more expensive electric bill. This creates a race to the bottom in energy use.

The positive parts of this are that energy use will shrink, easing grid stress, reducing the likelihood of blackouts, reducing emissions and all that other good stuff.

The bad parts are that if you don't have the money or the ability to reduce your energy consumption you are going to be in trouble because your electric bill will keep rising through no fault of your own. This is a case where it takes money to save money.

But due to the lowering costs of CFLs, and cheaper, more efficient appliances, the costs of lowering your energy usage will go down, so the financial threshold to enter this energy saving frenzy is relatively low. Also, as the utility has an incentive to help each person cut energy usage they may subsidize or provide micro-finance loans to help people afford more energy efficient appliances or household improvements.

This could mean great thing for residential solar and wind power though. As the price per kWh goes up, it will be more cost affective to go off-grid with solar or wind or a hybrid system. And each person that goes off grid means higher rates for everyone else, making it more cost effective to go off-grid themselves.

If you want to take this idea to an extreme, it is possible that this could lead to an end of all utilities and the grid as everyone goes off-grid with wind and solar to save money. 

Sounds  a little unreal, but I can dream, can't I?

Added September 22nd 2009- I wrote a follow up to this article called, "Rate Decoupling and the Average Joe part II: The Utilities"