Pissing Oil Against The Wall  

The Age has a report from Malaysia, lamenting the local government's use of its oil wealth.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article on micro combined heat and power. There seems to be one flaw with this otherwise excellent idea - in the face of natural gas depletion its not a long term solution, though in the medium term it will help increase energy efficiency.

Down in Bernard Malin's basement is a softly thrumming metal box that turns natural gas into hot water and generates $600 to $800 worth of electricity a year - a bonus byproduct of heating his home.

"It's like printing money," says Mr. Malin, the first person in Massachusetts - perhaps in the nation - to own a residential "micro combined-heat-and-power" system, also known as micro-CHP.

But he's not likely to be the last.

Since Malin changed his home heating system to micro-CHP in February, 18 other families in the Boston area also have adopted the technology, which squeezes about 90 percent of the useful energy from the fuel. That's triple the efficiency of power delivered over the grid.

Factories and other industrial facilities have used large CHP systems for years. But until the US debut of micro-systems in greater Boston, the units had not been small enough, cheap enough, and quiet enough for American homes. Add to that the public's rising concern about electric-power reliability - seen in a sales boom of backup generators in the past couple of years - and some experts see in micro-CHP a power-to-the-people energy revolution.

"Right now these residential micro-CHP systems are just a blip," says Nicholas Lenssen of Energy Insights, a technology advisory firm in Framingham, Mass. "But it's a ... technology that ... could have a big impact as it's adopted more widely over the next five to 10 years."

The Oil Drum has a post on electric transport - The Potential of Electrified Urban Rail and/or Electric Vehicles which is an interesting read, though it doesn't seem to consider the plug in hybrid / smart grid / vehicle to grid option that I consider one of the keys to our energy future.

Liquid transportation fuels are not the only option for transportation. There is a general consensus on The Oil Drum that shifting long and medium distance inter-city freight from heavy trucks to electrified railroads is an essential "silver BB" with an implied expansion of inter-city passenger rail service on these electrified tracks.

This modal transfer trades about 20 BTUs (or joules) of diesel for 1 BTU (joule) of electricity. The massive gain in efficiency makes electrified railroads sustainable if social order can be maintained. The history of railroads in the 1800s shows that oil is not essential for railroad operation and maintenance. Some "doomers" have suggested that "running the railroads" with their essential freight and passenger service may be a key to maintaining social order.

There's more… (1953 words) | Comments (0 new, 115 total) | Permalink
This consensus contrasts with two competing and overlapping memes for urban transportation; electrified urban rail and personal electric vehicles. Thus the "and/or" in the title. Bicycling has been largely overlooked in the discussions so far.

In my opinion, which is still evolving, the magic bullet of an all EV solution to urban transportation is politically popular and leads to a trap. There is also some political support for the list of urban rails appended below but this support lacks the passion of a Suburbanite desperately searching for the easiest possible way to preserve his or her way of life and property values.

The "secret" of Urban Rail is not its direct energy savings (although excellent) but the indirect savings by changing the urban form (with smaller homes) that makes walking and bicycling (the best modes) easier. Ed Tennyson has estimated that US cities with Urban Rail systems (more than one line) use 159 gallons of gasoline less per capita per year than those without. He also noted the declines in Washington DC Metro gasoline consumption relative to the rest of the US as line and line of DC Metro opened. And this observed difference is with the generally minimal Urban Rail systems that US cities have.

I live in an ideal example of a walkable neighborhood supported by a streetcar line, the Lower Garden District of New Orleans. 5 grocery stores within 6 blocks (4 reopened), my tailor and insurance agent both 4 blocks away, bank 3 blocks away and the St. Charles Streetcar Line 2.5 blocks away. We had at least 3, perhaps 4, GEMs ( http://www.gemcar.com ) in use in my neighborhood or nearby.

EV supporters point to the growing renewable generation and say "This is where our sustainable energy will be coming from. What is wrong with that?"

Were it not for the new demand from electrified transportation (rail and EV) this new renewable (mainly wind) generation would largely displace natural gas and some minimal coal generation. New demand for electrified transportation in the next decade will run off of the marginal generation sources, which will be coal, natural gas, and conservation (driven by cost) for at least a decade. Of course, more gasoline and diesel would be burned (if available) in a non-electrified transportation future so a no electrified transportation future is the worst of all worlds.

On the subject of smart grids, I came across a new smart grid news site today which looks very interesting. From an excellent editorial called "Beyond the Buzz: The Potential of Grid Efficiency":

The term Smart Grid describes a collection of transmission and distribution (T&D) system technologies. Such a grid fuses the physical delivery network with intelligent sensors, software, communications, and distributed control. The result is new levels of security, reliability, economy and efficiency.

Many leading utilities have recently launched major smart grid projects under monikers such as ‘Utility of the Future.’ Although the taglines vary, the goals are very similar. They strike a theme of investment in the ‘last mile’ of physical delivery systems and in the information technology required as a foundation. These programs typically include technology-enabled customer participation in the energy markets through smart metering, demand response, load control, and, ultimately, widespread distributed generation interconnection.

But the Smart Grid also brings other significant industry and societal benefits. Those benefits include grid efficiency through time-tested “blocking and tackling” engineering and operations strategies such as:

· load balancing
· feeder voltage management
· real-time power flow analysis
· distribution automation

These methods reduce integrated system losses, lower CO2, SOX and NOX emissions while simultaneously increasing reliability as measured by IEEE 1366 standards.

The grid can be green too

With these facts as a backdrop, T&D technology and infrastructure investment are finally becoming a hot topic in utility board rooms and in regulatory and local government reviews across the country. Long the red-headed investment step-child of the integrated rate case, these infrastructure and automation projects are finally getting their much needed day in the sun alongside advanced metering infrastructure. Early adopter utilities are now investing ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately, the efficiency efforts lag behind more ‘glamorous’ initiatives. Private equity interest in clean energy technology is undoubtedly soaring. And positive national sentiment towards renewable generation is on the rise. Even so, the public’s limited short-term appetite to pay for the Smart Grid — which they largely don’t understand — lags behind the headlines and the clean energy buzz. For example, recent research indicates U.S. utilities have deployed SCADA to less than 70% of electric substations. And that feeder automation penetration is less than 20%. Widespread industry, political, and social barriers to mainstream Smart Grid adoption still persist. This fact is reflected by regulators and local politicians who face relentless consumer pressure to keep prices low, often to the detriment of long-term infrastructure investment that could provide economic security for their region.

Grid efficiency represents a vast ‘renewable’ energy resource hovering over our heads, waiting to be tapped. Although grid automation and efficiency lack the front page sizzle of green energy generation, they nevertheless play a critical role. They deserve funding, legislative and national leadership support. It’s time to get beyond the buzz.

The Rodent continues to get criticised for his "unique" (can't argue with that) response to global warming. Would be carbon traders are already looking forward to the demise of Howard's policy of inaction on carbon caps (and carbon taxes).

Major financial institutions are keen to get access to the carbon market as they see it as a profit centre with huge growth potential. That potential has been demonstrated already. The European emissions trading system turned over $US8.2 billion in 2005 and in the first three quarters of 2006, turnover jumped to $US18.8 billion. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), part of the Kyoto process under which Western investors put money into clean technologies in the developing world, turned over $US2.6 billion in 2005 and $US2.2 billion to the end of September this year.

NSW's pioneering and unsung scheme aimed at the power industry resulted in turnover ballooning from $A59.1 million in 2005 to $A184 million in the nine months to September 30.

ANZ global commodities chief Geoff Clear said the market had caught the bank's eye. ANZ, he said, was investigating carbon trading. "We're not players yet but we're waiting for the first available opportunity," he said.

Energy Bulletin points to a classic little piece in Schnews (with matching image) on the Australian drought.

A DROP OF STREWTH IN AN OCEAN OF BULLSHIT

Last weekend was the International Day of Action Against Climate Change, coinciding with the start of the latest UN Climate Talks in Nairobi from 6th-17th November. The buzzword at this summit is ‘adaptation’ - i.e. we’ve left it too late to stop climate change, so how do we adjust our markets to survive and prosper from the now inevitable changes? Also being discussed is what to do when the Kyoto agreement lapses (and the world ends, according to Mayan prophecy) in 2012.

The day drew marching crowds worldwide, while one country facing a nasty climate-changed future saw some of its biggest ever environmental rallies - Australia.

The 40,000 in Sydney, 40,000 in Melbourne, plus twenty six other population centres who protested could be having their ‘Katrina’ moment over the next few months as the country goes into its worst droughts for 1000 years - after the hottest year on record - and the reality of climate change becomes irrefutable, even to right-wing politicians.

From the same EB post, an article about global warming activists in the UK from Grist.

It's half an hour or so after the end of Britain's biggest-ever protest against climate change, and I'm still hanging out in Trafalgar Square.

A few groups of kids are milling around, and a couple of anarchists have set up a bicycle-powered disco. One or two old-timers are trying to get rid of their last remaining copies of the Socialist Worker. Most of the protesters have heeded the organizers' advice to reuse or recycle their placards, but the local cleaning crews are quick on the job, cleaning up the rest of the rubbish to get the place ready for a typical London Saturday night. Everyone else is heading home, or to the pub.

My cell phone rings.

"Meet us near the top of the square," says the voice on the other end of the line. "We're wearing the tiger suits."

So begins my foray into the world of radical opposition to climate change.

It's been a big year for climate change in Britain -- in several ways. The country's three main political parties have more or less converged on the idea that something needs to be done urgently about global warming. Even the last holdout, the Conservative Party, has come over all green, going as far as to change their party logo from a torch to a tree.

The recent Stern Review, commissioned by the man likely to be the next prime minister, puts a pound amount on future upheaval along with a cost estimate for the change to a low-carbon economy. A system of mandatory individual carbon allowances -- an idea outlined in Grist last year -- is closer to becoming reality. And that big march to coincide with the Nairobi climate change conference? It drew 20,000 people.

Bubbling underneath all this highly visible mainstream progress, however, is a current of direct action -- a hardened core of activists who have decided that it's time to throw their bodies in front of the coming storm.

My efforts to track down this new wave led me to settle down on steps near Nelson's Column to chat with a guy in a tiger suit.

First Johnny get spanked by the French, now George is getting harrassed via the legal system - the Age reports that the Bush administration face a climate lawsuit.

Environmentalists have filed a law suit against the Bush administration for failing to produce a report on global warming's impact on the United States' environment, economy and public health.

The law suit seeks to compel the US Climate Change Science Program to issue the national assessment, which should contain the most recent scientific data on global warming and projections for its future impacts.

The plaintiffs claim the government must complete such a report every four years under the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

"Global warming is one of the most serious threats facing humanity today," according to the complaint.

Without the report, decision makers and the public "are without one of the most important tools to grapple with this complex, potentially overwhelming and yet all important issue."

John Quiggin has a post on the cost of climate stabilisation in which he notes, as an aside, that peak oil will make the carbon dioxide stabilisation problem easier to solve. It is a common misconception that peak oil (and gas) will help re: global warming (even ASPO president Kjell Aleklett has said this on numerous occasions).

I feel the need to perform my broken record impression on this topic yet again - instead a likely outcome is that we’ll start synthesising oil and gas from dirtier (and lower “energy returned on energy invested” - which means we need to burn more to get the same net output) sources - first heavy oils and tar sands, then coal to lquids, and finally really wasteful stuff like shale oil.

Peak oil has a number of positive aspects but its quite likely the impact on global warming probably won’t be one of them - though I live in hope that we'll turn to clean, renewable technology options along with a focus on energy efficiency in order to manage both peak oil and global warming…

As I said in the previous post, I plan to focus on the economics of responses to climate change from now on and the obvious place to start is the Stern report.

There’s a lot in the Stern report, and I’m going to assess it a part at a time, starting with the issue I’ve been most interested in, the cost of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels. I’ll focus on the case considered by Stern, and in my submission of stabilising levels at 550 parts per million, which implies a reduction in emissions of around 60 per cent, relative to business as usual, by 2050. This should be enough to avoid severe damage.

The Stern review report a wide range of estimates of the cost of stabilization. The range is summarized as 1 per cent of GDP, plus or minus 3 percentage points. In my submission I gave a back-of-the-envelope estimate based on two parameters, the fossil fuel share of GDP (which I took as 6 per cent), and the elasticity of demand for fossil fuels, which I took as between 1 and 2. This gave a range of costs for a 60 per cent reduction in emissions of between 1.8 and 4.2 per cent, with a midpoint of 3 per cent, which is in the upper part of the Stern range.

One part of this discrepancy can be resolved easily. The Stern report estimates the fossil fuel component of GDP at 3-4 per cent. Using a value of 3 per cent would halve my estimated range to between 0.9 per cent and 2.1 per cent. Getting an accurate figure here is difficult, but its possible to explain a couple of reasons for our differing values.

The report observes, correctly, that the welfare-relevant variable in estimating the social cost of fossil fuels is the cost of extraction, not the market price which incorporates monopoly rents. Also, I looked at Australia, which has a more energy-intensive economy than the UK or the world average. So, the Stern number looks pretty reasonable. ...

Stern says, and I agree, that fossil fuels (most obviously coal) will remain abundant. Oil running short would make the stabilisation problem marginally easier in some ways (more rapid adjustment in transport) and less so in others (coal is generally worse than oil).

A Queensland businessman has told the state premier that building new dams isn't the way to solve water shortages - using the water we have more efficiently is easier and cheaper.

A BUSINESSMAN who invited Queensland Acting Premier Anna Bligh to open his new operation has criticised the building of new dams. Ms Bligh is the minister in charge of two major new dams as part of the multi-billion dollar statewide water grid.

Rockcote Enterprises managing director Bob Cameron said in his speech the government was wasting money building dams. “Building new dams to overcome the water shortage is like buying new wallets to overcome a lack of money,” Mr Cameron told the gathering.

Mr Cameron said the focus should be on recycling water and making buildings more energy efficient.

Daniel Yergin and CERA are claiming that peak oil theory is faulty - though their prediction sounds more like a long, slow peaking than a prediction of endlessly increasing production, which isn't far off some of the peak oil models (albeit with a farther out peak date). If you want to read their 16 page report you'll need to cough up US$1000 though. The Congressional peak oil caucus has a reponse. Jim at The Energy Blog also has some comments.

The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as “not a view of endless abundance.” However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030, but that the idea of a peak is itself “a dramatic but highly questionable image.”

Global production will eventually follow an “undulating plateau” for one or more decades before declining slowly. The global production profile will not be a simple logistic or bell curve postulated by geologist M. King Hubbert, but it will be asymmetrical – with the slope of decline more gradual and not mirroring the rapid rate of increase -- and strongly skewed past the geometric peak. It will be an undulating plateau that may well last for decades.

During the plateau period in later decades, according to the CERA analysis, demand growth will likely no longer be largely met by growth in available, commercially exploitable natural oil supplies. Non-traditional or unconventional liquid fuels such as production from heavy oil sands, gas-related liquids (condensate and natural gas liquids), gas-to-liquids (GTL), and coal-to-liquids (CTL) will need to fill the gap.

The editors at Energy Bulletin (well - except for the lazy one) note:

I was surprised the number of points on which CERA and peakists agree. (CERA uses the term "peakist."):

* A peak (or plateau) of oil production is coming. CERA says no sooner than 2030; peakists say sooner.
* Both CERA and peakists seem to be agree that there will be a curve of rising production, a peak (or plateau), followed by falling production. CERA criticizes the "bell shape" of Hubbert's curve and maintains that the curve will be asymmetric. Many peakists agree. (The discussion about the shape of the curve quickly becomes very complicated - beyond the understanding of most lay people.)
* CERA prefers to talk of an oil production "plateau." Many peakists also use the term.
* Both agree on the urgent need to "prepare for the time when oil supply could cease to grow adequately to meet demand."
* CERA says: "Technical innovations will continue to unlock additional oil resources not currently identified or understood, or viewed as uneconomic." The difference between CERA and the peakists lies in their estimates of the magnitude and quality of the resources to be uncovered.
* CERA says: "we still appear to be in a phase where oil supply (deliverability) is largely determined by demand, economics, and aboveground risks rather than on any fundamental problems with resource availabily." Most peakists would agree that demand, economics and aboveground risks are important factors - especially now. However, they would probably say that these factors are exacerbated by geology.
* CERA says: "there is still no accurate assessment of global reserves and resources." Peakists heartily agree. Matthew Simmons argues that "transparency" about oil reserves is a critical need.

Despite the many points of agreement, there are significant differences between CERA and peakists. For example:

* CERA frequently lumps unconventional sources of petroleum together with conventional sources. Peakists tend to analyze them separately.
* CERA takes an optimistic view of technological improvements. Peakists are more conservative.
* CERA does not mention EROEI (energy return on energy invested) in its press release or report. Peakists are constantly talking about the EROEI of energy sources.
* CERA does not mention global warming and the constraints it will place on energy sources (at least in these documents). Among peakists, the picture is mixed. Some peakists do incorporate global warming in their analyses, while others do not.

In sum:

Discussion between CERA and the peak oil community is possible and desirable.

Rational discussion about evidence and analysis is to be preferred to "true believer" dogmatism and ad hominem attacks.

It would further the discussion if CERA were to make their arguments and at least some of their data public. In particular, one version of the press release contains a graph and table of projections. It would be useful if these were posted on the CERA website.

TomDispatch has a look at the appointment of Robert Gates to head the US defence establishment and what it means for Imperial strategy - from offence to defence.

In September 2002, Arab League head Amr Mussa warned that an invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of Hell" in the Middle East. Four years later, with those gates -- at least in Iraq -- open wide enough to drive a tank through, the look of the Bush administration is suddenly in rapid flux. (The neocons, having ushered in Hell, are being ushered out the door; while the first President Bush's "realists" and their followers are heading in.) Given the nominee to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Gates of Hell may soon have a new meaning. Right now, despite all the anticipation about future Iraq policy changes, the good news that accompanies the nomination of former CIA Director (and, as president of Texas A&M, keeper of the Bush family flame) Robert Gates has little to do with Iraq and lots to do with Iran.

In these early post-election days, the Iran rhetoric at the White House has, in fact, remained at the boiling point. As last week ended, White House spokesman Tony Snow labeled Iran and Hezbollah a "global nexus of terrorism." (Paul Woodward, editor of the War in Context website, commented: "The administration is no longer served by playing to the Christian Right, so its out with religious ‘evil' and in with a much more sophisticated, secular, and no doubt bi-partisan, "global nexus of terrorism.") Then, on Monday, the President himself, in a press briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, called for the global "isolation" of Iran and essentially rejected an opening of any sort to that country. ("[I]f the Iranians want to have a dialogue with us, we have shown them a way forward, and that is for them to verify -- verifiably suspend their enrichment activities.").

None of this sounds like good news; but, despite the rhetoric, the Gates appointment certainly lessens the possibility of an air assault on Iranian nuclear facilities early next year (as well as any campaign to "decapitate" the Iranian regime). This had clearly been one of the (mad) policy options that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were entertaining.

Like James A. Baker, co-head of the Iraq Study Group, Gates believes in negotiating with Iran. In the summer of 2004, with former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, he co-chaired a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that argued for opening a dialogue with Iran. Its report, "Iran: Time for a New Approach," contended that the lack of American engagement with Iran had harmed American interests and advocated direct talks with the Iranians. ("Just as the United States has a constructive relationship with China [and earlier did so with the Soviet Union] while strongly opposing certain aspects of its internal and international policies, Washington should approach Iran with a readiness to explore areas of common interests while continuing to contest objectionable policy.")

In addition, Gates -- like Baker one of Daddy Bush's boys -- has clearly been brought in to help clean up Sonny's Iraq mess. Being sane and hard-headed, he knows perfectly well that stirring up a hornet's nest in neighboring Iran is hardly a way to tackle the almost insurmountable Iraqi crisis.

For once I haven't found any interesting tinfoil (or even some random oddity) to close with - so I'm afraid thats it for tonight...

Update: Hold the press - go check out this object on Google Maps and guess what it really is (hint: it wasn't built by the world's dumbest ship-builder).