The Gulf Oil Spill and Its Impact on Renewables
Many of my friends have asked my opinion on the likely impact of the Gulf oil spill on the trajectory for renewable energy. And although one might think that I’d be in a reasonably good position to answer a question like that directly and accurately, in truth, it really is hard for me –- or anyone, I believe — to predict the effect of this catastrophe on the world’s energy policy going forward. I offer a few points for discussion:
Many people suggest that, as horrific as the spill is, it comes with a “silver lining,” i.e., accelerating the demand for a replacement for oil as our predominant energy supply, brought about by an increased awareness of the many dangers of oil. Oh really? So the general public — normally fast asleep — has awakened? So a large flock of sheep had an epiphany on the dangers of oil and created a firestorm of outrage at the oil companies? So what? The same political forces that have continued to grant oil companies enormous subsidies through the last half century and made gasoline/diesel 98+% of our transportation fuel – even when we became aware of the dangers many decades ago — are still in place. And now those forces are working harder than ever. Do you think the corporate powers and (by far) the biggest lobby on the planet are updating their résumés and looking for new careers because of a lousy oil spill?
In addition to the big politics and big money, there legitimately are technology issues. Of course, these issues would have been largely mitigated, or eliminated entirely, if we had done what we should have been doing since the oil embargoes of the 1970s: running 1000 miles per hour toward electric transportation and various forms of renewables. Now, our oil addiction is so severe that the consequences of moving away from it are, like withdrawing from any addiction, quite unpleasant.
And consider global climate change. Some people say that the oil spill negates any point that the “deniers” may have had — i.e., now the validity of the global climate change theory no longer matters. Of course, that’s been the case for a long time as well. If you’re looking for a reason to break our oil addiction, the argument about global warming has been moot for many years; it’s been obvious to most of us that there are five or six different equally compelling reasons. I know there are people who disbelieve the climate change theory; I run into them all the time. But are there people who don’t believe in terrorism? In the consequences of a ballooning national debt? In lung cancer? In the dangers of weak national security? In ocean acidification? The spill is certain to weaken the position of the oil zealots (and whatever forces control them) — who try so hard to sell us on the idea that “oil business as usual” is a reasonable path towards a sustainable civilization.
So I suppose that there really is a silver lining here. It is precisely that now, anyone and everyone (you don’t have to be a clean energy editor/business analyst) can see the truth for what it is. There is one and only one winner in oil, namely the oil companies themselves. Recall the tobacco companies of the 20th Century, and their product — the only legal one that when used as directed causes death. At a certain point we all realized that cigarettes were very good for Philip Morris investors and executives – but that they were very bad for literally everyone else on the Earth. The issue is the same here. The oil companies are the sole beneficiary of oil. And now, finally, it’s clear to everyone.
Let’s acknowledge that we made a grievous mistake in the 1970s/1980s — and move on. And let’s keep our eye on the ball this time. Dropping the ball once is not license to drop it again. Use this as a litmus test for our leaders: an elected official who is really on your side (if there actually is such a thing) will take whatever political risks may come his way to stay the course in the development of clean energy solutions.
But it’s up to you and me to insist that our leaders do that. In case you haven’t noticed, they don’t do things because they’re right; they do them because they’re forced.
No doubt this will hit the general public where the ‘green guys’ want it to. In their hearts and minds. The realities of increasing energy requirements and reckless oil have now moved off text book pages and onto tv screens.
Here in Africa we are watching this unfolding tradgedy like a soap opera drama. What is interesting is that in all this the average american or global citizen will forget about this environmental disaster when it is out of the headlines no different than an athletes sex scandal.
Big Oil and corporate giants the world over need to pay for their actions but citizens the world over need to realize their power by demanding far reaching sustainablity measures from the companies that supply their energy.
We are indeed our worst enemy if all we do is point fingers in the heat of the moment and do the same when the next environmental disaster happens.
This must be our approach going forward.
I have just finished reading Craig shields article under the renewable section and I completely agree with his statement. I am currently researching the topic “Triple Bottom Line reporting” which is becoming an important reporting tool across all organizations. I believe that more organizations should be accounting for not only their economic impacts but also their environmental and social impacts. If organizations like BP had taken a much more detailed approach to their sustainability development (through TBL reporting), then they would be able to identify risks and put control measures in place before these big disastrous happen.
I would like to find out what other people think of my comment and whether or not they have ever came across TBL reporting
Good Article. I live on the Gulf of Mexico all my life. I have lived and saw spills and as I thought I was glad we never had to worry about drilling. This B.P. spill is ugly. Now look at our Gulf. Please a Judge who has oil stocks or it appears he does suggest all is well start drilling. I think he”the judge” should have recuse himself. For what I have witness this last 20 years we grossly need a real change looking at Alternatives now. Yes I started talking this way in the late 1968,1969 1970’s. Remember there is a Hugh history on oil and changing Alternatives or new cleaner Energy to cleanup is a Great idea so our future Generations don’t have to do it.Let them thank our Generation for our Sacrifice.
IMO, Gulf oil spill doesn’t change much, I’m afraid. Only two ways world gets off of oil — biofuel and electric vehicles. Technologically, biofuel produced in mass quantities is still probably a decade away. Electric vehicles coming much sooner; however, the power grid isn’t ready for mass adoption and probably won’t be for a decade (by which time world will have so many more vehicles that the need for oil will probably be just as great even with alternative-energy vehiucles on the road.) While there are lots of technologies that can reduce fuel consumption of existing vehicles as much as 30%, surveys suggest public isn’t willing to pay the extra cost. Natural gas has promise for fleet vehicles, but the cost of a new fueling infrastructure limits broad acceptance. After midterm elections, Washington may push through a new energy bill, but don’t expect that to change much. The bill will mostly be about renewable electricity, which, ironically, will add to the grid stability problems created by plug-in vehicles.
This reminds me of “Three Mile Island” accident in 1979. That crippled the nuclear industry growth in the US and allowed exported technology to enrich the French and Japanese nuclear companies. I expect a growth of safety and hazard analysis will eventually allow safe deep sea exploitation. I think the industry has gone too deep without proper engineering up to now.
There is something going on now that is called the “BP” oil spill which is
going to affect the entire planet eventually, and I predict will probably
end this president’s candidacy for re-election. This points very
specifically to our dependence on fossil fuels, and if things go the way I
personally see them going, it will spell the beginning of the end for fossil
fuel dominance of the world’s economies. I will be glad to see it happen
and whether you agree or disagree nobody can defend our collective
government’s arrogance for letting the big oil companies write their own
rules regarding deep ocean drilling. Not blaming Obama – but all previous
administrations as well. You will never be able to say that these people
had any clue about a plan in place to fix this kind of problem. This is
such a blatant “manmade disaster”, done in the name of pure profit, without
any consideration for cleaning up the mess if something like this were to
happen in the first place. No plan in place, nobody in charge, no
particular concern by the CEO of BP until he was called on the carpet.
Still, no solution. No help in terms of a Plan from our government, no
equipment on hand, not even a visit from our President to the Gulf Coast
until 23 days after this well had been pumping millions of gallons into the
ocean. What is the difference between a terrorist attack like 911 and the
Deep Horizon event? What, no good photo ops on a sunken oil rig? At least
Bush was on top of 911 whether it was for his political image or not. This
government we have today has taken a back seat on the bus with the Deep
Horizon event and it will be noted also in the history books. We all know
this will be swept under the rug and everyone will still buy gas for our
cars without worrying about it, but is should serve as a wakeup call to all
of us who really do care about ushering in a cleantech economy.
BP could spend the rest of their companies fortunes to “make this right” but
it will never happen. They can’t donate the rest of their profits for the
next 20 years and stay in business. I expect BP will never come close to
repairing the damage they caused by cutting corners and trying to save
millions getting that rig up and pumping oil. All this is well documented
and will come out down the line. Everyone who has lost their livelihood by
this disaster is waiting for money to come trickling down through BP and now
our government is supposedly going to oversee the distribution of these
funds? Boy, doesn’t that make you feel warm & fuzzy? Tell it to the folks
on the Gulf Coast who are out of work, out of business, and basically
screwed for the next 10 years for all we know? And that well just keeps
pumping away every day waiting for BP to drill a “relief well” which is
their answer to fixing the problem. They can’t even screw a hose on the top
of it and pump some of the oil out successfully without screwing it up.
Let’s hope the final solution is not a little too late?
Sustainable Infrastructure
There is no energy problem as noted by Thomas Edison in 1910:
Some day some fellow will invent a way of concentrating and storing up sunshine to use instead of this old, absurd Prometheus scheme of fire. I’ll do the trick myself if some one else doesn’t get at it. Why, that is all there is about my work in electricity–you know, I never claimed to have invented electricity–that is a campaign lie–nail it!”
“Sunshine is spread out thin and so is electricity. Perhaps they are the same, but we will take that up later. Now the trick was, you see, to concentrate the juice and liberate it as you needed it. The old-fashioned way inaugurated by Jove, of letting it off in a clap of thunder, is dangerous, disconcerting and wasteful. It doesn’t fetch up anywhere. My task was to subdivide the current and use it in a great number of little lights, and to do this I had to store it. And we haven’t really found out how to store it yet and let it off real easy-like and cheap. Why, we have just begun to commence to get ready to find out about electricity. This scheme of combustion to get power makes me sick to think of–it is so wasteful. It is just the old, foolish Prometheus idea, and the father of Prometheus was a baboon.”
“When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.”
“Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.”
“There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen…
I agree with many here that the oil companies have obtained too much power as have the non-U.S. “regimes” with high reserves. And I work in the renewable energy field, but perhaps with a slightly different motivation than many. To my engineering mind, it’s the sustainability and cost of fuel that is so attractive, and to a lesser desire for an immediate cessation of carbon energy sources. Given that the science is not yet conclusive, even if compelling, I’m fully behind the idea of a “rational hedge”, whereby we make reasonable transitions to better, greener fuel sources. Rational means to get to the ends are ones that support consistent improvements in technology and execution which deliver a more cost competitive solution. The more policy deviates from this, say for example by creating huge increases in energy and fuel costs among other costs (taxes), the more irrational it becomes in my view.
As well, the argument comparing tobacco companies and oil companies starts out valid, but it quickly becomes weak. The products are nowhere close to the same from a social value standpoint. Regardless of how much personal pleasure smokers may say the get from the use of the product, it otherwise does not solve an essential human need problem. Oil for transportation is a crucial component in a very needed supply chain. Non-essentials and essentials alike are delivered CHEAPLY via current transportation methods thanks to oil. Anyone care to guess how more more foodstuffs and medicines would cost if we forced a massive, quick change in fuel supply, and therefore cost?
Again, for me, a rational reaction to the spill follows somewhat the course the WH is on now – ensure the full cost of the mistake is borne by BP as that is the most effective way for the company and the industry to learn from the mistake. Beyond that, effective policies that allow for the conversion of oil consumption to alternatives in a manner that is progressive but not PUNITIVE is needed. What many people miss is the fact that a large increase in biofuels potentially leads to an equal or more deleterious environmental impact from an ecological calculation (emergy or total energy from soup to nuts). As well, were we to force a high concentration of electrical vehicles right away, the costs would be astronomical in building a sufficient infrastructure. Depending on how one makes assumptions and calculates, the grid capacity would need to double or triple in order to have anywhere from 20% to 30% of all vehicles powered electrically.
Everyone has a right to hold BP in the highest contempt. It is casually suggested here that the elected class has a role. I would argue that they should be given a near equal amount of contempt for – 1) not really looking out for the best interests of the people (or the country) and 2) allowing their actions to be so influenced by companies as described. To think that these same people will all of a sudden wake up and “behave” is a fantasy. After all, the current, defective, efforts a energy legislation have much more corporate influence than from “the people.” Reports show that BP had a primary role in creating one form of the policy (the House? not sure) .
We may all have different opinions, but some combination of fuel efficiency (reducing demand) and transition to alternatives that is rational, by my definition, must be demanded from the elected class.
It’s about the money. Do you think oil people do it for fun? No they don’t, they don’t care if it pollutes or not, if they had a huge profit margin product to replace oil they would be on that like white on rice, that’s why BP hedges there bet by investing in Solar, they are getting ready for the day we use more renewables, in the mean time they have 150 years of known oil out there according to the USGS, so they want to cash it in, now if the renewables were very profitable, they would hire Lobbyist to promote that, it’s all about the money.
Hello Craig,
Thank you for your mail.
This aspect was bugging my mind for quite some time.
Oil is, as you have quoted has been accepted as an infinite source though we know the limitation of the mother nature. We can relate this to the death which is certain, but the uncertained certainity of the aspect is making us to behave as though we are immortal.
First of all Oil cannot be dealt with uni-dimensional approach.
The impact of oil in our life is comprehensive by nature.
All these diemensions has to be answered.
So, Do we need oil resources for a need based society ?
We need oil only because of the induced GREED based society.
We have to change this.
Change should be revolutionary due to its intensity.
We need policy makers to make it mandatory from individual level to societal level with both public and state participation to curtail our dependency on oil in a phased manner.
Our ancestors lived a better life but we unduely take the liberty of catagorising them as primitives compared to our generation.
Can we substanctiate in any way ?
We do but at subconcious level we know we are just beating behind the bush.
Travelling has got several dimensions and all the unnecessary dimensions has to be checked.
De-centralised approach should be brought to practice with the help of public participation and with the involvement of the state is a must.
Attitude of the public should be changed with awareness programme by the state about worthy lifestyle with the needy travelling.
But, presently everything is in the dimension of GREED and not in the dimension of NEED at all. Forced consumerism, Created Crisis are the manthra of this generation.
How many frequent flyiers, glob trotters, persons who use oil, both directly and indirectly, in their daily GREED activities and others are squandering the limited resource of the mother nature ?
Is it necessary ?
Modern Science and its technologies and the more predominant misutilisation of the technologies are the reason for our pathetic state.
We can address and correct all these created crisis but we need to be revolutionary by nature and we should impose this on public with an authority to bring in constructive changes.
Will we be able to do it ?
Answer lies in that dimension Craig.
No offense meant.
vasan.
Vasan, nearly all businesses can be easily painted with the brush you call “greed”. I don’t know you, but in this posting it seems you subscribe to the “revolutionary” ideas of the most extreme environmentalists where the only solution is a complete, and some would argue unnatural, change in mankind’s behavior nearly in total.
Oil as a product does not represent man’s greed. Unless, of course, you prefer man return completely to foot and horse transportation and unless you honestly prefer to discontinue man’s technological advancement as you suggest. For every “luxury” item that ties to oil whether as base product for the manufacture or owing to the cheap transportation for availability, I can point to many necessities like I mentioned before such as foodstuffs and medicines that would not be as quickly developed or delivered as quickly and cheaply were it not for oil.
And, just my opinion, but if those who insist that the state has to drive and force the change continue on that path, it will take even longer to get there. There are many ways to change the narrative, whether that narrative is distributed generation or renewable energy sources, and in a way that a majority can afford and ascribe to.
Can anyone who believes the sole path is force from the state point to any one historical example where such an environment was conducive to a “good life” and to the progress of society? Almost always it leads to the reduction of the will to advance.
Big Oil is not categorically evil and bad. Profit is not categorically evil and bad for mankind. A wise plan for transitioning energy sources and infrastructure would be one that includes many people, with all their various goals and desires, as well as including the ability to thrive and profit. Removing that, plan on incessant delay and resistance.
I appreciate the mail, and the perspective you give on the impact of the Gulf Oil Spill.
Dear Craig,
Thanks very much for your timely perspective on the Gulf Oil Spill. The disaster in the region is clear to note the danger Oil Companies pose to the enviorment and climate change world wide, and the need for alternative energy to serve our world is the safest way forward. However, when leaders become obsess with power and money they sometime neglect to do what is right. A strong political will is require to make the necessary change to produce a safe enviourment, please allow me to once again recommend RenewableEnergy as an alternative source for producing energy for our one GlobalVillage. Thanks for sparkling up the debate.
Like most, I commend your article. Many of the comments are quite interesting and speak to our current context. However, I will be more blunt. We now live in a corporate oligarchy. The elected class, as one writer put it, are now both the priesthood and the soldiers of the oligarchy. Naturally, you have the occasional “Mr Smith”. Judging by the results of the last ten years, I would say these freshly minted champions have all gone down in flames. I could go on, but my point is already clear, and some will have already classified these statements as hyperbole.
Ruling classes tend to not accede to the demands of sharing their power. Shifts of power do occur, but it would now seem that they only occur when “hitting the wall”. Change now seems to be only of the tipping point variety. I see this as translating into a succession of ever more violent disruptions, whether they be blowouts or extraordinary post-apocalyptic scenarios straight out of fiction. I can’t say exactly when, but the gas lines are coming again. I can’t say exactly when, but the collision course with a warmer world has already been scheduled, with all that it implies.
In the meantime, many individuals will of course make insane amounts of money, and the band will play and the liquor will flow up to the point that we then drown. We will of course go on, but I’m guessing that the twentieth century will be looked back upon as when we threw the party.
Wow, Arlene. I always look forward to your comments — and this one certanly did not disappoint. My biggest fear is that you’re 100% correct in everything you said.
The core problem, it seems to me, is that increasingly few people have conversations like this one. Pop culture leads people 180 degrees away from this discussion.