Wind Power Helps Texas Sail Past Oil  

Renewable Energy Access has an article on the rapidly growing generation of power from wind in Texas.

Texas, long the traditional home of the oil industry in the U.S. has begun to make its presence felt in the renewable energy market as well. In 2007, more than one gigawatt of wind energy capacity has been installed in Texas and the state now accounts for nearly 30% of the nation's wind production.

"As a state, we recognize the importance of promoting and supporting the researchers, businesses and individuals who are pursuing these activities and believe that by working together, we can achieve a brighter, cleaner and more stable future for us all."

--Phil Wilson, Texas Secretary of State

Because of its geographic location, Texas is an ideal location for wind and other renewable energy production. Texas Secretary of State Phil Wilson highlighted the important contribution Texas can make in the renewable energy market in his keynote address at the Texas Renewables '07 Conference.

Wilson said Texas has the potential to produce 400 times the amount of energy the state uses each year through renewables, and that as a result, wind and other renewable energy sources can help bring prosperity to the state.

"With the cost of producing renewable energy decreasing, it is becoming a more viable and profitable option each year," Wilson stated. "Through advancements in technology and the utilization of renewable energy, we will begin to see an even larger financial advantage when it comes to alternative fuels and our economy."

Texas is a state that is friendly to business and to the energy industry. The state was a net exporter of energy for most of the 20th century, but in the mid 1990's, it found itself becoming a net importer. This worried many in the state's government but it also created an opportunity.

Mike Sloan, Managing Consultant of The Wind Coalition said that, "Texas' competitive energy markets and business-friendly environment have enabled the wind industry to deliver results that help customers and help the environment more quickly in Texas than in any other state."

According to Dr. Andy Swift, Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Center at Texas Tech University, Texas' energy producing past made the state more easily adaptable to the renewable energy industry. He also points to oil industry as another reason wind power in Texas has succeeded. The work force that had been involved in the oil industry is perfectly suited to be used for wind production with minimal retraining.

"Wind is accepted by people in Texas more than other places. The land use issues and aesthetic issues that are causing problems in the Northeast, they exist here also but people are more used to that here," he said.

A recent American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) assessment found that Texas has the capacity to produce 1200 billion kWh of wind energy per year. That's three times the amount of wind energy currently consumed in the state. And as plans to produce still more wind energy in Texas are made, so to are plans that take advantage of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) to export some of that energy to neighboring states.

Laurnece Aurbach at Pedshed has more on the subject of anthromes.

On November 26, 2007, professors Erle C. Ellis and Navin Ramankutty published a conceptual model and map that revolutionize the story of global ecosystems. The conventional view, which can be found in millions of atlases and introductory textbooks, is an aggregation of ecosystems called biomes. Biomes are classified by vegetation, climate and location, and have exotic, suggestive names like “Tropical Mountain Systems,” “Temperate Oceanic Forest” or “Boreal Tundra Woodland.”

Biomes also suffer from a notable deficiency: The humans are missing. In certain important respects, the conventional biome map is a fantasy, an image of the earth minus the influence of people and their land uses.

And have we ever had an influence! As Ellis and Ramankutty note, humans have been redesigning, re-engineering and remaking the land such that “the vegetation forms predicted by conventional biome systems are now rarely observed across large areas of Earth’s land surface.” Today, in the year 2007, “more than three quarters of Earth’s land surface has been reshaped by human activity.”

Thus the need for a new conceptual framework for global ecology and a new global map. The conceptual framework is based on human biomes (also called anthropogenic biomes, or “anthromes”) and the new global map is based on satellite images, population statistics, and GIS analyses. The new framework has interesting implications for resource management, land use planning and the environmental ethics underpinning many policies and regulations.

We’ve known for a long time that humans have had a profound influence on the earth. One thread in the historical literature is the story of decline — deforestation, erosion, and general depletion of the land and sea. The Earth as Modified by Human Action by George Perkins Marsh recounted this story on the global scale back in 1874. Books like Deforesting the Earth represent a modern retelling with better data and economic analysis.

Another thread is one of renewal and stewardship. Perhaps the earliest examples can be found in Biblical injunctions for the stewardship of Creation. More recently, arguments have been put forward for the positive role humans play in natural ecologies, as we improve biodiversity and the general health of the land. Gardeners of Eden by Dan Daggett is an example of this line of thought. A Newsweek article, The New Jungles, described how some urban areas are more hospitable to wildlife than their surrounding agricultural lands.

I believe these attempts to redeem the potential of human influence are better served by Ellis and Ramankutty’s anthrome model. First, a model that includes humans provides a more accurate and realistic view of global conditions. Second, such a model provides firmer operational support for humans as planetary stewards. No longer are we continually chasing after an ideal of pristine nature that doesn’t exist in the first place. Instead, we have leapt ahead of the trends, turning to view what we have wrought with a paradigm that lets us recognize and confront our true role on this planet. ...

If you're into maps, you may find the blonde map of Europe entertaining too.

WorldChanging has a look at clean energy down south - "Renewable Energy in Antarctica: a Green Option for a White Continent".

In October 2007 Meridian Energy, one of New Zealand’s principal electricity providers, carried out feasibility studies for the installation of wind turbines in the world’s windiest continent. The turbines would provide power to New Zealand’s Scott Base and possibly neighbouring U.S. McMurdo Station. Meridian Energy has found the proposed locations have less extreme wind speeds than some areas around Wellington, the New Zealand’s notoriously windy capital city, where wind farms have been established.

Antarctica is one of the most vulnerable parts of our planet to environmental change. And yet, paradoxically, electricity at New Zealand’s Scott Base is produced by two fossil-fuel powered generators, using 380 000 litres of aviation fuel annually. Hardly an ideal choice for sustaining the needs of scientists studying pristine natural systems and climate change impacts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts warming of a greater magnitude in polar regions than elsewhere in the world and studies by the British Antarctic Survey show that 87 per cent of glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula have retreated in the last 50 years. The dramatic break-up of the Larson B ice shelf in 2002 may be a sign of things to come. If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt completely, the probability of which is difficult to predict, global sea levels would rise by around 6 metres (20 feet).

In this context, New Zealand researchers have been investigating ways to decrease fossil fuel use and reduce energy costs through renewable energy generation at Scott Base. Although CO2 emissions from Antarctica are negligible on a global scale, human impact in some areas is a cause for concern. A high proportion of Antarctica’s limited ice-free land is currently used for research stations, making these fragile ecosystems particularly vulnerable.

Furthermore, reliance on fuel imports means icebreakers are needed at times to cut through the frozen Ross Sea in order to bring fuel to the Base. Meridian Energy’s proposal would reduce the need for such fuel-intensive activities. Wind power in Antarctica makes more economic sense for New Zealand’s Scott Base due to the high costs of transporting fuel across the great Southern Ocean.

Engineering staff and students at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch have focused on Antarctic renewable energy research (pdf). Renewable energy systems for Cape Bird and Bratina Island have been developed and energy modelling on the use of solar Photo Voltaic (PV) panels has been undertaken (pdf).

University of Canterbury mechanical engineering student Jake Frye won a 2006 MacDiarmid Award for his Masters paper Sustainability on the Ice (pdf) in which he investigated the potential for wind power at Scott Base. He highlighted the need to reduce electricity demand at times of lower wind power supply in order to make the most efficient use of the resource. This would mean for example, doing the laundry at times of high wind energy production, whereas essentials like heating would always be backed up by fossil fuel generators.

Meanwhile other countries are also developing renewable energy systems for their research bases. Trans-Tasman counterpart Australia has installed a wind turbine at Mawson Base and Belgium has built a fully renewable-energy power station. A feasibility study of wind power at McMurdo Station done by the U.S.’s National Science Foundation four years ago found that 1.2 million litres of fuel could be saved each year. New Zealand’s proposal could feed into the two countries’ joint logistics pool while contributing some relief from fuel dependence.

Tom Whipple's latest in the Falls Church News Press looks at the latest OPEC meeting - "The Peak Oil Crisis: Decision at Abu Dhabi". I once got abused by some anonymous flunky at the State Department for calling the Texas Railroad Commission a cartel - Tom doesn't go quite that far but comes close...

For those of you who came in late, it might be useful to recall that 35 years ago marginal world oil production (and therefore prices) was controlled by the Texas Railroad Commission.

In those days, most oil production in the U.S. was hauled off by trains so by mandating how much could be moved the Commissioners could effectively control the price by preventing over production.

This, of course, was based on the premise that plenty of oil was available to pump so that if you wanted the price to go down you simply pumped more. In the early 1970’s, however, production in Texas and the U.S. as a whole went into decline so the Commission could no longer lower prices by shipping more oil.

Ten years before production peaked in Texas, however, several of the then major oil exporters, who were tiring of the international oil companies dictating what they were paid for their oil got together. In 1960, they formed the Organization of Petroleum Exporters (OPEC) and the world was off on a different course. After oil production in the U.S. peaked, OPEC controlled the world’s marginal oil tap. The Arab producers soon figured out that not only could they control the price they got for their oil, but they had a potent weapon that could be used to influence Middle Eastern policies in the U.S. and Europe who were the major importers.

Over the last 30 years, the influence of OPEC has waxed and waned. Major new oil discoveries in Alaska, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico reduced OPEC’s influence for awhile. Internal troubles such as the Iran-Iraq war and Baghdad’s invasion of Kuwait made it difficult for the organization to agree on policies.

As the century turned, however, so did the fortunes of OPEC. Around the world, giant oil fields started to decline leaving only a few OPEC members with much or any spare production capacity or prospects for growing output. More importantly, the world’s two most populous countries, China and India, which had been dormant for centuries, got their economic acts together and began to import ever increasing quantities of oil. The price of oil that in 1998 was $10 a barrel soared to nearly $100. OPEC members were not only getting rich, they were back at the center of world affairs.

Now the OPEC of 2007 is not your grandmother’s OPEC. Its 13 members are an eclectic group with widely varying amounts of oil production and, more importantly, widely varying prospects for ever producing more oil. A few members have large dirt-poor populations and a few are small and filthy rich. Most of those clustered around the Persian Gulf need the U.S. and the EU to protect them from militant Islam, in both the Shiite and the Al-Qaida forms, as much as the OECD needs their oil. Feeling their oil wealth, one member is off on a militant-religious crusade and a couple are even on a 20th century socialist kick.

Upon gathering every few months at an OPEC meeting, they all bring with them much baggage and widely varying amounts of “clout.” Nearly all agree that non-OPEC oil production has just about finished growing. If world production is ever going up much further (a dubious proposition from the peak oil perspective) then it is going to come from within OPEC. Unfortunately, only Saudi Arabia may have the capacity to significantly increase production immediately. There are a few other members such as Iraq, Nigeria, and Angola that still have some prospects for increasing production. However, the Iraqis and Nigerians are busy shooting at each other and Angola can’t carry the whole world by itself.

Simon Ratcliffe at Resource Investor has a look at the impact of oil prices on the less well off - "Of Hierarchies, Thresholds and the Rising Price of Oil".

What effect does the high price of oil have on our world and on our country in particular? It is perhaps useful to think of the hierarchies of wealth that we find among countries, within individual societies and among businesses. We can picture these as a ranking with the wealthiest and most powerful at the top and moving in descending order to the poorest and weakest at the bottom. Whether these are countries, families, individuals or businesses, those at the bottom are more vulnerable than those at the top. The wealthiest are best able to bear the effect of high oil prices. They have a higher threshold before they are seriously affected. This applies to all of the categories described. Thus European countries can absorb the high price of oil better than the poorest African countries.

Living in a country with a higher oil-price threshold, it is easy not to notice what is happening in poorer countries. It is perhaps important here to examine the effect of the current prices on a number of poorer countries. Perhaps the most dramatic case is that of Burma, where fuel price rises sparked nationwide demonstrations which were brutally crushed by the military regime which saw then as a political threat.

In Nepal in July, the Kathmandu valley was hit with its worst energy crisis in history as the state-owned petroleum importer and distributor stopped supplies to gas stations entirely. Fuming taxi drivers subsequently parked their cars in front of the heart of the Nepalese government centre to protest the shortfall. The Nepal Oil Company (NOC) has been facing cuts from its sole supplier, the Indian Oil Corporation , because of mounting debts owing to Nepal’s subsidies, which force NOC to sell fuel below cost.

In Sri Lanka severe fuel shortages led the United Nations (UN) to warn the government that it may not be able to continue providing humanitarian aid or preserve its supply of vaccines and essential medicines. UN agencies have been forced to curtail the usage of generators and vehicles. Construction activity in the Jaffna and Wanni regions has all but ceased due to the lack of fuel.

In Zimbabwe critical petrol and diesel shortages are further ruining the already compromised economy, pushing the price of a litre of petrol to a staggering Z$120,000. Fuel stations went completely dry in June, and there have been long queues at the few which had any to sell.

In Ghana electricity shortages are causing load-shedding blackouts, costing the economy up to $5 million a day. Ghana has compensated by leasing huge petrol powered generators to produce emergency power - at exorbitant rates.

In Senegal the state power company, Senelec, has been unable to pay for supplies of fuel for its oil-fired power stations, leading to cuts in electricity supply. China has come to its rescue with a 370-million-yuan loan to fund a new distribution network, in addition to its commitment to build a 250MW coal-fired power station there.

Beginning in April, Costa Rica began experiencing nationwide electricity blackouts, forcing emergency rationing. The country’s hydroelectric capacity is strained to the max, due to a dry summer cutting power output 25%, damaged turbines at oil-burning thermal plants, and Panama’s decision to stop exporting electricity to Costa Rica. Blackouts are now routinely scheduled.

In the Dominican Republic electricity blackouts have become commonplace, apparently due to a lack of fuel and regular maintenance of power plants. Programmed blackouts have now spread from the barrio neighbourhoods to the exclusive residential districts. The picture is clear: the poor and undeveloped countries of the world are the first to fall before the remorseless fuel price inflation brought by the high price of oil.

What we see with countries, we see with families and businesses. Each family has a threshold of what it can bear in terms of the impact of oil prices on its mobility, its food consumption and its mortgage which will likely be affected by rising interest rates. Poor families are likely to be hardest hit while the rich are able to ride out high prices for longer.

Businesses are also vulnerable to the price of oil. Some are more vulnerable to the rises in prices which accompany a rise in oil price. This depends on sector and the price sensitivities within each business. But as prices continue to rise, the most vulnerable begin to fall as victims of this pressure. They tend to fall from the bottom of the wealth hierarchy as financial resilience resides nearer the top.

The chance of achieving the Millennium Development Goals is beginning to look more and more like a pipe dream. But there is an ironic twist to this picture. Those at the top are also the most dependent upon oil for the health of their economies or for the maintenance of their lifestyles. As the most oil-dependent country in the world, the U.S. is likely to experience a painful transition to a less oil dependent state. The very structure of its economy, its transportation infrastructure and the spatial structuring of its cities evolved assuming oil was infinite. Constrained oil supplies will take a heavy toll on this society, which takes its energy-hungry lifestyle for granted. Conversely, those with a low dependence on oil are best placed to adapt away from this declining resource. It is a case of “the higher you are, the harder the fall”. ...

Phil Hart at The Oil Drum has a look at electric bicycles - "How Big is your Bicycle?"

I think electric bicycles have a great future. Take a typical push-bike and modify it with an electric motor and a small battery pack and you have a vehicle which could get millions of people through their daily commute for an order of magnitude (or two) less than they currently need.

Suddenly you have a vehicle that's pretty frugal in the use of resources required to manufacture it, doesn't require any particular level of fitness and is ready to plug into the electricity grid. I can also imagine manufacturer's addding little 'bubble' cages around them soon, to provide weather protection so that the list of reasons not to 'cycle to work' reduces even further.

However, thinking about this future raises some other concerns. While total freight traffic must decline, it's likely that big trucks will still be common because of their efficiency per unit transported. Buses are also going to be a big part of our public transport future. But these trucks and buses will be sharing the roadspace with an increasing number of small and ultra-small vehicles. We could see a bi-modal size distribution of vehicles develop on our roads, which has hefty implications for road safety and infrastructure planning.

Links:

* TreeHugger - Turbo-cooker Wins Prize for Clean Burning
* REA - Part 2: What To Do With All This Waste?
* Grist - It can be done: McKinsey & Co. on how to reduce greenhouse gases
* Peak Oil Debunked - Richard "Pol Pot" Heinberg. I've seen Heinberg speak and he seems like a nice enough guy - but if you start talking about forced relocation of people you've got to expect this sort of treatment (for the record I think Heinberg's recommendation is madness).
* Digby - Populist Monarchs and Subjects
* PBS - Ron Paul Envisions Smaller Government, Less Global Intervention
* New York Times - U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
* Cryptogon - U.S. National Intelligence Estimate: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003
* Cryptogon - European Las Vegas Planned for Spanish Desert
* Cryptogon - Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO Giants Know Something We Don’t. Kevin has a remarkable ability to make the most innocent sounding venture seem sinister....