Posts Tagged by fossil fuels
Talking Renewable Energy on “Getting Your Money’s Worth”
| October 12, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
Many years ago I donated 90% or so of my neckties to charity as I almost never wear one anymore. But I’m glad I didn’t get rid of them all, as here I had a rare opportunity a couple of weeks ago when I was in New York City and taped an episode of “Getting Your Money’s Worth,” in which I discuss renewable energy with show host Judith West. (The video displays better on Internet Explorer than other browsers.)
It was actually quite a rocket ride, where Judith asked about solar, wind, fossil fuels, electric transportation, and a range of other subjects concerning the politics of clean energy.
Related posts:
Electric Transportation, Fossil Fuels, and "Internalizing the Externalities"
| September 1, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
Do you have a clean energy story that you’d like to tell the world?
One day each month, I shoot a series of short television shows called the “2GreenEnergy Video Report” in which I interview folks with interesting stories to tell at a television studio. The shows air throughout the month on a local channel here in Southern California — but, perhaps more important, we host the videos on YouTube and this website where they get some really good, longer-term exposure.
If you’re interested in being a part of this process, please check out the sample below, and let me know if you’d like to participate. Read More
Related posts:
2GreenEnergy – May’s Survey on the Migration to Clean Energy
| May 28, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
May I ask a quick favor? Do you mind spending a few minutes on this month’s 2GreenEnergy survey?
Like the rest of the world, I’m trying to make sense of a very important issue: Why is the migration away from fossil fuels so painfully slow? Of course, this is a complicated question. In fact, there are lots of reasons that come into play – and in varying amounts. But some are more important than others, and I’d love to get your input on the matter.
If you’re willing to help me out, please click the link; you’ll find that it’s self-explanatory. Thanks in advance.
Related posts:
Environmental Law Institute Reports on Subsidies for Energy Companies
| April 20, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
During a slow period at the Electric Drive Transportation Association conference this afternoon, I walked a couple of miles across town to interview spokespeople for the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) – Senior Attorneys Jay Pendergrass and Lisa Goldman. We talked largely about the subsidies that our US federal government provides to energy companies, insofar as ELI recently completed a comprehensive, independent study on the subject. “This is by far the most widely distributed report we’ve ever created,” Jay told me. “It’s been downloaded over 18,000 times.”
ELI painstakingly pulled together information on every form of expenditures or forbearance (e.g., a tax break) that is given to fossil fuels, carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol, and what it calls “traditional renewables” like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
The results are in the report linked above: fossil fuels get about $5.50 for every $1 going to renewables.
My main question, of course, is why our government is doing this. The role of subsidies is to promote things that are in the public interest. All the $70.2 billion that is going to traditional fossil fuels is accomplishing is creating “a transfer of wealth from the public to the shareholders of oil, coal, and gas companies,” as Jay explained. Here’s $70 billion that could (should??) be going to promote things that actually are in the public interest: an end to our addiction to oil, to our empowering our enemies, to our poisoning our planet and everything living on it.
Interesting discussion, to be sure.
Now I’m off to the welcome party. I’ll try to turn down my cynicism and enjoy myself.
Related posts:
Bringing Fairness to the Discussion on Energy
| December 28, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
I was going through some old blog posts here at 2GreenEnergy in an effort to make sure that we’re emphasizing the most important elements of the discussion on renewables. One theme that is central to the conversation, of course, is the need to understand and account for the externalities of our current system of generating energy, based, as it is, more than 80% on fossil fuels. For those looking for a solid but fairly high-level treatment of the subject, check out this marvelous summary: What’s The Real Cost of Fossil Fuels?
I understand the frustrations of those who say we’re about a million miles from a world that forces these costs onto the energy industry, but I point out that we may be closer that many people believe.
When I interviewed James Woolsey (Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency from February 5, 1993 until January 10, 1995) for my book, he called my attention to Boyden Gray’s piece in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, putting the cost in damage to peoples’ health and medical costs total at approximately $250 billion a year from the aromatics. It’s only a matter of time in this data-rich world in which we live before the we have complete quantification of each of the major externalities, forcing even the most unreasonable people to demand fairness here. Read More
Related posts:
[The Vector] Nanotechnology – A Disappointment? (Part Two)
| December 17, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Energy Storage |
(continued from an earlier article)
Down in the Quantum World
Nano particles are less than 100 nanomicrons in width, meaning that a human hair is approximately 80,000nm wide. Down at the molecular level, materials behave differently to the way they behave in larger volumes. Because so little is known about material behaviour at nano level at the International Forum on Chemical Safety at Dakar in 2008, 71 governments and 12 international organizations recommended the application of the Precautionary Principle to it. The principle states that anyone proposing a new initiative in a risky area must prove their initiative is safe before they carry it out.
Yet, according to the Friends of the Earth report, regulatory systems in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan and other countries treat all particles the same; that is, they do not recognise that nanoparticles of familiar substances may have novel properties and novel risks. Carbon nanotubes for use in electronics, energy applications and vehicle parts may be associated with the cancer mesothelioma, for example. Although many nanomaterials now in commercial use pose greater toxicity risks than the same materials in larger particle form, if a substance has been approved in bulk form, it remains legal to sell it in nano form. Read More
Related posts:
'Tis the Season … for Bashing Electric Vehicles
| December 16, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
I have to say that I’m befuddled by all the electric vehicle bashing. Here’s an article from the Washington Post that really lays it on with a trowel. While author Charles Lane admits “the administration’s objectives – reducing carbon emissions and U.S. dependence on foreign oil – are legitimate,” he quickly goes back to the main theme: “But $5 billion wasted on electrics is $5 billion that cannot be used to meet these goals.”
The article quotes experts who agree, but (what a surprise) scrupulously avoids those that don’t.
Every time I see something like this, I think: Well, this most certainly could be more propaganda from the extremely powerful interests, i.e., the traditional energy world, who want to see electrics fail – make that “who desperately need to see electrics fail.” But the part of me that is not so cynical honestly tries to make sense of this. Read More
Related posts:
Nanotechnology – A Sandwich Without the Beef? (Part One)
| December 13, 2010 | Posted by Aedan-Kernan under Energy Storage |
The ability of nanotechnologies to deliver cost-effective renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions has come under attack in a recently released report by the environmental campaigning organisation Friends of the Earth.
The nano technology industry has over-promised and under-delivered, according to the report. The performance of nano-based renewables has been considerably less than predicted. Efficiency of solar energy conversion by nano solar panels is still about 10% behind that achieved by silicon panels, while the energy and environmental costs of the nanotechnology industry are far higher than expected.
Related posts:
Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy Sources – Some Business Considerations
| November 15, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
I often think about how the energy industry’s financial analysts view the fundamentals that apply to market valuations. Just now, I was reading some of the discussion at SeekingAlpha.com on ExxonMobil that attempts to get to the underlying buy/sell recommendations, and I note that the conversation is fairly bullish across the board.
In particular, though there is widespread agreement that the “easy oil is gone,” there is almost no recognition of a concerted move to get off of oil as a civilization. Moreover, the concept of “peak oil” (i.e., that the supply of oil will soon start to diminish) means that the price will soar, and that only companies with the scale of ExxonMobil (vs. the wildcatters of yore) will have the capability to play effectively. But there is precious little talk of the impact of electric transportation, or renewable energy in any of its forms.
I’m trying to figure out what that means. Here are a few points of speculation: Read More
Related posts:
The Renewable Energy Discussion — Patterns Emerge
| November 5, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
When I get up every morning, I take my cup of coffee, sit down, and read the news in the energy sector – often including a few comments from bloggers. As one might expect, there are patterns that develop, a common one of which is exemplified below: the argument that free-market economics has determined that fossil fuels should be the dominant form of energy – with the counter argument that there is nothing truly “free” about “free-market economics.”
Person A: The price of crude oil, natural gas, coal etc will decide how and when people will switch to alternative energy sources, not cheerleading by solar energy industry.
Person B: In other words, the switch to alternative energy will be determined by what happens in terms of the billions and billions in government subsidies that keep the price of oil, natural gas and coal artificially low. Read More
