Posts Tagged by fossil fuels
Carnegie Mellon University Studies Electric Transportation
| February 29, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
Glenn Doty points out a flaw in my recent piece about electric transportation. He writes:
(The Carnegie Mellon University study) assumes a life-cycle grid emissions profile of 615 g-CO2E/kWh. That is blatant BS.
The impact of new marginal electricity demand (as represented by shifting transportation demand from liquid fuel to electricity) can only be satisfied by spare generating capacity. There is no renewable spare capacity in most of the country, and in the places where there is spare capacity (TX, IA, MN, ND, IL…) there is no benefit to be had from a constant 8+ hour nighttime demand increase, as the spare renewable capacity in these cases is curtailed wind, and the constant 8+ hour night-time demand would be satisfied by not tamping down baseload power as much each night. Read More
Webinar: The Future of Transportation
| February 20, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
Though we all want simple solutions, none exist. Currently, transportation is redundant, heavy, bulky, fossil-fuel-reliant, and unaffordable in every sense of the word. But what can be done to invoke things like mass transit, ride-sharing, micro-rentals, and small, light, and inexpensive urban transportation? What can be done to reduce car ownership — or at least the total number of miles driven? How can we encourage walking and bicycling? What about rethinking how and where we live?
This Morning’s Interview with Jerry Taylor at the Cato Institute
| February 14, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
I just interviewed Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute for my next book, Renewable Energy – Following the Money. This was a wonderfully engaging talk of about 90 minutes with a brilliant person, which I have time only to summarize here.
In one way, I can say that there were no real surprises. Jerry calmly explained that clean energy either becomes affordable, and capitalists invest, or it’s not, and it sits on the sidelines. And given the fact that Cato’s mission statement is the forwarding of Libertarianism, how can anyone be shocked by that position?
The interesting part, of course, whether you’re a Libertarian or a Communist, is understanding the damage that fossil fuels are doing, and using government protection of the people to step in and make a difference. Libertarians believe in minimal government, though they acknowledge its role in protecting individual’s rights. E.g., I have no more right to pollute the air over your house than I do to throw my garbage in your front yard.
So, with all this philosophic agreement in place, why is the Cato Institute so bearish on renewable energy? First, it’s about pinning down the damage. They seem to believe that the externalities of oil and coal are minimal, as compared to most of the reports I’ve read. Jerry says, for instance, that the recent report from the Harvard Medical School estimating the health and environmental damage of oil and coal at $700 billion annually was “a bad study.” Also, though he acknowledges that industrial activities are causing global climate change, he thinks that the effects of this will be minimal, and not felt until far in the future. In addition, he finds it even harder to know who is benefiting and who is suffering.
Really? Do we have to split hairs here? What’s the matter with looking at this and concluding the obvious, like the oil companies are the most profitable industry on Earth, and the other seven billion of us are suffering. Not so fast, says Jerry. The developing countries near the equator are likely to be hit hardest by global warming, but they have also benefited the most from industrialization.
I don’t know, Jerry. I enjoyed the conversation, but this sounds like sophistry to me.
Infographic: The Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy
| February 5, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
Whenever I speak on renewable energy, I’m careful to leave my audience with a sense of the “tough realities.” We all want simple answers to our questions, but in the case of clean energy, none exist.
There are dozens of different flavors of solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal, each improving in terms of cost and efficiency, but at different rates. There are economic issues, as none of these flavors can compete with the dirtiest form of coal, if we don’t take into account the “externalities” like lung disease and environmental damage. And Lord knows there are political issues, where we have serious candidates for president of the U.S. who, if elected, boldly pledge to dismantle our Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy. If this occurs, it would effectively end the efforts of the largest economy on Earth to migrate away from fossil fuels and nuclear. Read More
Moral Philosophy and Energy Policy
| February 2, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
Last week, my son, a college freshman, sat down to his first class in philosophy.
First, can someone tell me why philosophy isn’t taught in high school? Is there some reason we think we need to shelter kids from life’s great questions until they’re older? I never taught the subject formally, though I tutored quite a few undergraduates while I was in graduate school, which often caused me to wonder how I would construct my own “101” course if I happened to be in that position, and at what age group I would present it.
What happened when mankind evolved to the point, about 10,000 years ago, that we had a solid grasp on basic agricultural principles, and so no longer needed to roam, hunting for and gathering food in a nonstop life-and-death struggle? What happened when we started to look up into the heavens — and the questions started to flow: Who made all this stuff? Why are we here? What happens when we die? Read More
The Future of Transportation — February’s Free Webinar
| January 28, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
It’s certain that 6600-pound Hummers will not occupy an important position in the way we transport our bodies and our “stuff” in the coming years. But where exactly are we going? And who’s going to make a buck in the process?
I hope you’ll be able to join us for our next webinar, 10 AM PST on Friday, Feb. 10th: “The Future of Transportation,” in which I’ll be interviewing Dan Sturges. Dan’s life is dedicated to developing and promoting a complex and dynamic set of solutions built around overhauling the way we move ourselves and our cargo around the surface of the planet. He shares my belief that our current conception of transportation — redundant, heavy, bulky, and fossil-fuel-reliant – is simply unaffordable in every sense of the word. It’s not economically sound to the individual consumer, and it’s exorbitantly expensive to society as a whole, both financially and ecologically.
In this lively discussion, Dan will explain how mass transit, car-sharing, ride-sharing, and micro-rentals can begin to reduce car ownership. He’ll talk about introducing small, light, and inexpensive urban transportation, while encouraging walking and bicycling, and the use of information and communication technology to make these blended solutions convenient and appealing, thus ensuring the consumer-citizen adopts these concepts enthusiastically.
I certainly hope you can make it. Here’s the sign-up form: http://2greenenergy.com/free-webinar/
From Guest Blogger Iannick Gagnon — Oil: The First Shock (1859-1865)
| December 18, 2011 | Posted by iangagn under Fossil Fuels |
This article is submitted with the hope that it will set the tone for a series of others that will follow by covering the origins of the petroleum industry in the United States. The main objective of these pieces is to provide the reader with a historical understanding of shocks in oil prices. Later on, other writings will cover more recent material on the subject and a final piece will offer the reader some predictions of what the future of oil prices might look like in the short, medium and long term.
The task at hand is ambitious, but its value is considerable. Everyone feels a pinch when the prices at the pump crawl higher and higher with no end in sight. History has repeatedly proven to be the best thing we have to go on and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. As a result, we will establish a solid foundation from which we will make an educated guess about the future of the oil industry and what it means for civilization. Read More
From Guest-Blogger Iannick Gagnon — Oil: The First Shocks (1859-1900)
| December 11, 2011 | Posted by iangagn under Fossil Fuels |
This article, I hope, will set the tone for a series of others that will follow by revealing the origins of the petroleum industry in the United States. The main objective of these pieces is to provide the reader with a historical notion of shocks in the oil business in order to better understand the background of fluctuations in petroleum prices. Later on, other writings will cover more recent material on the subject and a final piece will offer the reader my predictions of what the future of oil prices might look like in the short, medium and long term.
The task at hand is ambitious, but its significance is enormous. Everyone feels a pinch when the prices at the pump crawl higher and higher with no end in sight. History has repeatedly proven to be the best thing we have to go on and in doing so, we will establish a solid foundation from which we will make an educated guess about the future of the oil industry as a whole and what it means for civilization.
THE FULL ARTICLE WILL BE AVAILABLE ON: December-19-2011
The Electric Vehicle Adoption Curve – Two Opposing Views
| November 29, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
In response to my recent piece on electric vehicles, a few readers sent me John Peterson’s position on the subject. Thanks, but I’m already quite familiar with it. John’s a brilliant, honest, and levelheaded guy; in fact, I plan to visit him in Switzerland when I’m in Europe next spring. Having said this, I disagree with him here.
For starters, the concept that EVs are overhyped and destined to failure because “Cheap Beats Cool” does not ring true of the auto market generally. Since the dawn of the automobile, and certainly since World War II, cars may be about sex, or about the wish to appear affluent, but they certainly aren’t about getting around as inexpensively as possible; “cheap” really isn’t the motivating force here. Read More
Thanksgiving – An Appropriate Time to Appreciate Mankind’s Benefactors
| November 24, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
Albert Einstein left us a number of gifts, most obviously his landmark breakthroughs in theoretical physics. The other, in my estimation, is the utter truckload of pithy philosophic quotes about mankind’s role in the universe. If you’re looking for something that will keep you out of trouble for a few hours, check this out – there are ten full pages of them.
Perhaps the most often quoted is this:
We can’t solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used to create them.
… which is often invoked by environmentalists to suggest that we’re foolish to count on the fossil fuel and nuclear industries to deal with the pollution and other externalities that come along with their products.
I’m with you all the way, good sir, and suggest that a combination of new modes of thinking are in order here:
1) Environmentalism itself, inspiring more and more people to act responsibly vis-a-vis the natural world
2) Energy conservation per se, making wholesale reductions in consumption, driven by building retrofits, mass transit, electric vehicles, etc.
3) Renewable energy – biting the bullet and making the investment in a clean energy future
Again, thanks to the ultimate man of ideas.
