NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES: Energy analyst predicts that oil could reach $300 in ten years. Can the GOP’s energy policy meet our future energy needs?

Posted on November 20, 2010

Images via Grant Neufeld and pshab on Flickr.

How will the future economy of the United States respond to rising oil prices or to $300-a-barrel oil? Under the Obama Administration and a Democratic majority, we’ve seen the federal government attempt to stimulate renewable energy by investing into it, by contributing to energy-storage technology, and by recognizing the utility of alternative-fuel vehicles.

Despite fossil fuels contributing to climate change, national security concerns, and the pollution of the human environment, the GOP embraces an economy dependent on dirty, nonrenewable fossil fuels. Fossil fuels may seem cheap, but they’re not. The cheap cost of fossil fuels, paid at the pump for example, doesn’t reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, because the price at the pump doesn’t include costs that are a consequence of the negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels. For example, it has been estimated by numerous studies that the negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels cost governments and the public billions of dollars each year. This means that while fossil-fuel companies receive record profits, they’re not responsible for the consequences of doing dirty business or for the billions of dollars that governments and the public are forced to pick up. Additionally, the fossil-fuel industry receives government subsidies to pollute the human environment. These fossil-fuel subsidies must be eliminated to “enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits.”

Given the facts and consequences associated with a fossil fuel-based economy, it would seem that a prudent and progressive energy policy shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but the Republican Party isn’t exactly known for pushing clean, sustainable, or rational energy policy reforms. For example, the Republican Party’s energy policy focuses on “lifting restrictions on ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, and oil shale in the Mountain West.” Also, the Republican Party claims that “revenue generated by the sale of leases will be invested in renewable and alternative sources of energy.” However, what will the United States utilize after these nonrenewable resources are exhausted? Why drill here, drill now when these minerals are sold on an international market, so why is it necessary to invade protected wilderness areas to extract minerals, which aren’t necessarily consumed domestically. Also, considering greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change, why is it necessary to add even more trapped carbon dioxide — a greenhouse gas — into the atmosphere? Basically, the short-term benefits of extracting and using these minerals are outweighed by the long-term damage caused by climate change and a failure to implement a prudent or sustainable energy policy.

Furthermore, the Republican Party believes that “the best way for utility companies to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their supply of nuclear energy.” However, nuclear power isn’t cheap, and the costs associated with constructing new nuclear power plants have skyrocketed. There are also substantial costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants (“it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant“). Other negatives associated with nuclear power production include the fact that the nuclear power industry depends solely on a nonrenewable energy source, and there’s the well-known problem of storing nuclear waste. Also, “the process of thermoelectric generation from fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, is water intensive. In fact, each kWh generated requires on average approximately 25 gallons of water to produce.” Therefore, drought could force nuclear power plants to shut down. What’s more, there are past and present safety concerns with nuclear power production. Recently, the nuclear power industry has been plagued by safety problems at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Certainly, if the costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants, with the management of nuclear power plants, and with the disposal of nuclear waste are considered, then both solar and wind power are substantially cheaper than nuclear power.

The GOP’s talking points on energy also claim that Democrats tax energy, but the GOP makes no mention of the tax incentives and tax credits spurred under the Democratic majority and under the Obama Administration. Consequently, the Republican Party merely politicizes and trivializes the issue of energy. Why can’t the Republican Party aggressively pursue the development of renewables? Portugal is doing it. Denmark is doing it. Iceland is doing it. Even China understands the utility of developing its renewable energy sources.

Additionally, being a conservative political party, there are energy conservation strategies that the Republican Party should show open and strong support for but don’t. For example, there are the ideas of retrofitting buildings to conserve energy, adopting greener building standards to conserve energy, or even promoting the smart grid revolution to conserve energy. Also, instead of attacking it, the Republican Party should show strong support for science in order to spur innovation and technological development to meet our energy needs.

Given the Party’s energy policy positions, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives threatens to stifle the progress made by the Democratic majority by resurrecting an energy policy focused too much on fossil fuels. For example, Representative Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas and BP apologist, is supposedly a contender for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Another contender for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee is John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois. Shimkus is a climate-change denier, and once declared that “global warming isn’t something to worry about because God said he wouldn’t destroy the Earth after Noah’s flood.”

To summarize, the Republican energy policy lacks innovation and forward-thinking, and their energy policy merely utilizes old ideas, which don’t promote energy security. To put it another way, the Republican Party’s answer to our current energy crisis is to stick their heads in the sand. Also, the failure of the Republican Party to embrace prudent energy policies is the failure to recognize the connection between population growth, rising energy demand, natural resource unavailability, and rising energy and mineral prices. More on the future price of oil via Peak Oil News and Message Boards:

Ludwig: What is your oil price outlook as this whole new world order begins to take shape?

Maxwell: The supply and demand of oil in the world today are pretty close to each other, and there shouldn’t be too much deviation in 2010 and 2011. We think prices will stay within a band roughly between $67-$87 a barrel. When it gets up toward $87, it seems to retreat, and when it gets down toward $67, it seems to take off again. That’s because supply and demand are in rough balance.

But as the economic recovery continues, as more people use oil because there are more people in the world, and China and India continue to progress with rapid expansion of cars and the roads they are offering their people, demand for oil will continue to climb between 1 and 1.5 percent per year. That, combined with the depletion of these mature oil fields we’ve talked about, will bring us to a plateau by 2015-2017, where the rising production of newer oil fields will equal the falling production of old fields.

At that stage, prices will break through this $87 boundary—in about 2013, I’m thinking. And by 2015 we’ll be up to around $130-$150 a barrel. And then by 2020, when we have 1.5 percent increases in demand each year and 0.5 percent declines on the downside, then we’ll really be in a fix. At that time, I’m looking at $300 a barrel in money of the day. But remember, by then we will have the full effects of inflation over the prior 10 years, so it would probably be something like $200 a barrel in today’s terms, but it will have a nominal price of about $300 a barrel.

SOLAR is coming to the White House

Posted on October 11, 2010

Image via New Scientist

Via the Associated Press:

The most famous residence in America, which has already boosted its green credentials by planting a garden, plans to install solar panels atop the White House’s living quarters. The solar panels are to be installed by spring 2011, and will heat water for the first family and supply some electricity.

The plans will be formally announced later Tuesday by White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley and Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush both tapped the sun during their days in the White House. Carter in the late 1970s spent $30,000 on a solar water-heating system for West Wing offices. Bush’s solar systems powered a maintenance building and some of the mansion, and heated water for the pool.

Obama, who has championed renewable energy, has been under increasing pressure to lead by example by installing solar at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, something White House officials said has been under consideration since he first took office.

What happened to the solar panels that former President Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House roof? Scientific American has an interesting article on the history of Carter’s White House solar roof, their removal during the Reagan administration, and the subsequent attempt to bring solar energy back to the White House roof. Also, there’s a discussion on how other countries are advancing ahead of the United States in the utilization of solar energy as an energy source and in the development of solar technology:

By 1986, the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers. “The Department of Energy has a multibillion-dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion,” Reagan said during an election debate with Carter, justifying his opposition to the latter’s energy policies. “It hasn’t produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy.”

And in 1986 the Reagan administration quietly dismantled the White House solar panel installation while resurfacing the roof. “Hey! That system is working. Why don’t you keep it?” recalls mechanical engineer Fred Morse, now of Abengoa Solar, who helped install the original solar panels as director of the solar energy program during the Carter years and then watched as they were dismantled during his tenure in the same job under Reagan. “Hey! This whole [renewable] R&D program is working, why don’t you keep it?”

. . .

[W]hen the time came to resurface the roof, the panels were taken down. “It was working fine, but the decision was it was not cost-effective.”

ENERGY POLICY: Will solar panels return to the White House roof?

Posted on September 14, 2010

Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

— Former President Jimmy Carter

We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our Nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

— Former President Jimmy Carter

Image via

Formerly, President Jimmy Carter had solar panels placed on the White House roof, but they were removed during the Reagan administration. Via Newsweek:

Jimmy Carter had a thing or two to say about energy. “We can’t go on consuming 40 percent more energy than we produce,” Carter said from the Oval Office in 1979. He warned that America’s energy dependence made us weaker to our enemies and urged Congress to act on clean domestic energy or face a future of rising prices and less international security. To drive home the point, he had a series of solar panels installed on the White House.

Sometime during the next eight years, they came down and never went back up. No one quite remembers why. There’s a rumor that President Reagan had the house repainted and never got around to reinstalling them.

Bill McKibben would like to have solar panels placed back onto the White House roof. Via Scientific American:

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter had 32 panels installed atop the White House to capture the sun’s heat. Thirty-odd years later, at least one of the panels still works, warming up in the Northeastern sunlight of Boston and sending steam heat out of a spigot on September 8, en route down the east coast from its temporary home at Unity College in Maine. By September 10, that panel had made it back to the White House, courtesy of dedicated Unity College students and environmental campaigner Bill McKibben.

However, Bill McKibben’s efforts to bring the solar panels back to the White House roof were recently rejected by White House officials. Via the NYTimes.com:

Mr. McKibben met with three midlevel White House officials Friday morning who told him, politely, no dice.

They explained that there were various reasons that the White House roof was not available for a gesture with very little energy-saving potential and that the Obama administration was doing more to promote renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any previous government. The word “stunt” may have come up.

More via Andy Revkin at the DotEarth blog:

But because the goal of this effort is a high-profile event involving the White House roof itself, it’s destined to run up against an immovable hurdle: a combination of the incredibly intertwined bureaucracy involved in doing anything to the White House and the authority of the Secret Service over anything that happens on that fabled roof. If you think congressional gridlock is bad, consider a bureaucracy that ranges from the Office of the White House Chief Usher to the National Park Service and Secret Service.

The security issues involving the roof, particularly in the wake of the September 11th attacks, dominate. To get some input on such issues, I spoke with Steve Strong on Wednesday. He’s a solar pioneer who attended the installation of the panels in 1979 and whose company installed photovoltaic and hot water panels on other buildings in the White House complex in 2002. That project had its roots in the Clinton administration but was completed during the Bush administration “under the radar,” labeled by the supervising National Park Service team as a “maintenance operation,” Strong said. Strong said that there was never a question of doing something on the roof of the White House proper, given the anti-aircraft missiles and “spook stuff” there and the veto power of the Secret Service.

Former President Jimmy Carter outlines his prudent energy policy in his July 15th, 1979, speech to the nation. Carter’s ambitious but shrewd goals for energy independence weren’t implemented, but his vision is still a model or symbol for a future when the United States is once again energy independent. Furthermore, Carter’s domestic energy policy also included fossil-fuels in addition to renewable energy sources (emphasis added):

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this Nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our Nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous tool on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our Nation.

The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980′s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade — a saving of over 4 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my Presidential authority to set import quotas. I’m announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our Nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the Sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this Nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our Nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the redtape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every State, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

Video: Former President Jimmy Carter addresses the United States’ energy shortage by discussing how humanity is becoming more materialistic, more self-Indulgent, and too consumptive. He characterizes this shift as a “crisis of the American spirit“:

Video: Solar road tripper Jamie Nemecek of Unity College tells us why she thinks solar on the White House roof is a good idea:

RENEWABLES can reduce your energy bill

Posted on August 28, 2010

Here’s one example. Via the Alameda Times-Star (emphasis added):

[Bruce] Cherry joined a small group of East Bay businesses that have taken advantage of the California Solar Initiative program, which provides rebates for installing photovoltaic systems.

“It is good for the environment,” said Cherry, who has one of the four businesses in town harnessing solar power. “It just made sense (to install) in the long run.”

Since the program began in 2007, 155 businesses in Alameda and Contra Costa counties have applied for state funds to help offset the cost of solar-panel systems.

The 542 solar panels on the top of Cherry’s two Dublin Boulevard buildings generate 50 kilowatts of power. He anticipates that year round it will produce enough to supply the tire store with 85 percent of its energy needs.

The system’s peak performing months are March through November because of the abundance of sunshine.

Since March, Cherry’s utility bill dropped from an average $1,500 a month to just $29 — the monthly connection fee he pays to PG&E to be connected to its power grid.

And Cherry, a San Ramon resident, could end up receiving a check from the utility company at the end of his first year in the program. The energy that Cherry doesn’t use goes to the grid, helping to power surrounding businesses. At the end of each year, the utility tallies up how much energy each solar customer produced and used — and pays them for the excess.

ENERGY: Biofuels from the sunlight: Algae-to-fuel technology promising, but challenges exist when going from the lab to the field with algae-to-fuel technology, and a new study suggests significant environmental impacts from algae-based biofuels

Posted on January 27, 2010

Through photosynthesis, algae can produce oil. In turn, algae-based biofuel can be used as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Fuels derived from algae are an attractive alternative energy source, because unlike petroleum-based fuels, which add trapped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere following combustion, biofuels do not.

However, research suggests that algae-based biofuels have several hurdles to overcome before becoming practical on a commercial scale. For example, proponents of algae-based biofuel argue that this type of biofuel produces less greenhouse gases, but recent research suggests otherwise. From The New York Times:

Proponents of algae oil say that the technology will perform significantly better than older generations of biofuels — that it will produce less greenhouse gas in its lifecycle, that it uses less land, that it can be grown anywhere — bypassing the concerns about competition with food crops that have come to plague corn ethanol.

Some environmentalists say water availability could be a problem for algae to fuel in the desert, though they say the issue has not been explored in depth. But some algae-to-fuel companies are already looking at using saltwater or wastewater — from sources like the Salton Sea — so that they won’t be shipping water to the desert.

. . .

Unexpected problems include other algae or microorganisms — borne by the winds or the birds — eating or outcompeting the cultivated algae (“equivalents of weeds,” Melnick says). Temperature fluctuations could range high. There could be too much sun. “All the variables that farmers are constantly exposed to,” Melnick says.

So going from the lab to the field, some strains live and others die. Demattia can brace for some forces — for example, hold off on adding water when he expects rain — and adjust for others, such as through tweaking fertilizer amounts. But some things he cannot help.

“Algae’s a mystery,” Demattia said. “It dies on you, you never know why it died. You just have it die overnight, and you’ll come in and no one will know, even the guys who’ve been doing it for 30 years won’t know what killed it. So there’s still a lot more to learn.”

Algae-to-fuel technology can be carbon and energy intensive. More from Yale Environment 360:

Growing algae for biofuels is an energy-intensive process that can generate more greenhouse gases than the process sequesters, according to a new study. Examining the life cycle of algal biofuels, researchers from the University of Virginia found that the process emits high levels of greenhouse gases because algal production requires using large amounts of fertilizer. Those fertilizers often come from petroleum-based sources, and fertilizers also emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, according to the study. The study, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, said that while biofuel production from crops such as corn, canola, and switchgrass can result in a net carbon dioxide uptake, that is not yet the case with algal biofuels. The paper said that one promising way to overcome the environmental impact of using fertilizers to grow algal biofuels is to produce them with effluent from sewage treatment plants. Proponents of algal biofuels also said it is too early to make firm conclusions about the environmental impact of the technology because it is still in its infancy.

Algae biofuel companies respond to the study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. From the New York Times:

One industry member said that while the University of Virginia research was conducted in a sound fashion, it was extremely outdated.

“It’s absolutely right if you think of it as last generation algae,” said Riggs Eckelberry, chief executive of the algae biofuel company Origin Oil, based in New Jersey. “But we’ve got to make this stuff viable now.”

One of the challenges to large-scale algae production noted by the paper was the need for large amounts of fertilizer to be added to the water in which it is grown. But Mr. Eckelberry said his company plans to use wastewater in algae production.

“Identifying wastewater is a homerun for algae production, probably the best there is,” he said. “There are lots of nitrates, and algae love dirty water — they can remove toxins, such as medical drugs from that water.”

In response, Andres Clarens the lead author of the study said he used the most recent data that he could, which was about 10 years old. Algae biofuel companies keep their research a closely guarded secret, he said.

He invited companies to share any more recent and relevant data they had with him.

“Everybody talks about the next generation – what is the next generation?” he said. “I’d be happy to model it if somebody produces it.”

He may get what he wishes for – the whole blow-out may result in a partnership.

On Tuesday, Mary Rosenthal of the Algal Biomass Association called him, and if member companies agree to make data available, Dr. Clarens may do a follow-up study.

One project is recycling dairy waste to produce algae-based fuel. From Sandia National Laboratories:

Recently Williams and other Sandia researchers have grown green algae in a 12-by-30-foot greenhouse using a simulated dairy effluent, the nutrient-rich liquid remaining after bacterial digestion of dairy manure. The solids from the digestion of dairy manure can potentially be used to develop fertilizer and feed and the liquid serves as a nutrient source for algae. The algae are typically cultured for several days, followed by harvesting and dewatering, after which the algal oil is extracted. The algae produce lipids, the most useful being neutral oil made up largely of triacyglycerides (TAG) that can be converted to biofuels.

Williams said that growing algae for biofuels eliminates many problems associated with traditional biofuels.

“The current generation of biofuels [starch- and sugar-based ethanol and oil crop-based biodiesel] rely on the use of commodity crops and therefore compete for use of food crops, primarily corn,” she said. “Also, they are very farm-intensive and use a lot of good farming land, fuel and fertilizer inputs and fresh water.”

Algae ponds, on the other hand, can be put on marginal land and grown with non-fresh brackish water produced from energy mineral extraction (petroleum, natural gas, coal-bed methane), or nutrient-loaded wastewater from municipal and agricultural sources. The Southwest has the potential for being a leader in manufacturing this new type of biofuel because “it has lots of barren land that can’t be used for anything else, lots of sunlight and a lot of marginal water,” Sandia researcher Brian Dwyer said.

. . .

Williams anticipates that the Sandia research will have the potential to provide new jobs and economic development to New Mexico, the seventh largest dairy-producing state in the nation. The state’s dairy industry employs more than 5,000 people and has an annual impact of nearly $2.7 billion.

The 340,000 dairy cows in New Mexico produce large quantities of manure and nutrient-rich effluent water that represent a significant waste management problem and regulatory expense to the state’s dairy industry. These and other agri-industrial waste streams represent a valuable and underused feedstock for recycling of energy, biofuels, reusable water and other coproducts. The DOE Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap currently in draft suggests the use of non-fresh water sources, including agricultural effluent, for algal biomass production. Besides providing a source of non-fresh water and the recycling of needed nutrients, the use of these waste streams in an integrated biorefinery will help to alleviate disposal regulatory requirements on dairies and other confined animal feeding operations in New Mexico and the broader United States.

Images via Randy Montoya

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::